Sitting of 23 July 1875

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Police Superannuation Funds [No. 352].
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Legal Practitioners * [46].
Committee—Agricultural Holdings (England) (re-comm.) [222]—R.P.
Considered as amended—Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) * [189]; Public Records (Ireland) Act, 1867, Amendment * [233]; Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1869, Amendment * [250].
Third Reading—Canada Copyright * [246]; Salmon Fishery Act Provisional Order (Taw and Torridge) * [247], and passed.
Withdrawn—Sheriff Courts (Scotland) (No. 2) * [135]; Clerk of the Peace (County Palatine of Lancaster) * [257].
The House met at Two of the clock.

ARMY—ARTILLERY—HEAVY GUNS.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, Whether it is yet decided on what system the 81-ton gun now being made is to be rifled, and what nature of projectile is to be used; and, whether it is the case, that no 35-ton gun has fired 100 rounds of battering charges without requiring repairs; and, if so, whether he would recommend the First Lord of the Admiralty to order some such practical test as would represent the work these guns might be called upon to perform in war time at a distance from the arsenal, to be carried out on board one of Her Majesty's ships, in order that the endurance of these guns may be tried under conditions such as they are intended to meet, before constructing very much larger guns on the
  1906
  same principle, and placing them afloat, as is intended in the "Inflexible," at a cost of half a million sterling?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL, in reply, said, the system on which the 81-ton gun was to be rifled and the nature of the projectile had already been decided upon. The 35-ton gun had fired over 100 rounds without any repair being apparently required, although, in one instance, the gun had to be re-vented. The Secretary of State for War was quite satisfied with the practical test which the heavy guns had undergone and were undergoing; and there seemed to be no reason for recommending any special test of the nature mentioned in the hon. and gallant Members Question.

ARMY—MILITARY PRISONERS—CASE OF GUNNER CHARLTON.—QUESTION.
SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the Secretary of State for War, If he is now prepared to state the facts of the case of Gunner Charlton, now lying at Topsham Barracks, Exeter, with mortified feet, and late a prisoner at Millbank; and, if he will explain the reasons of the non-report of this ease to the War Office, and the intentions of the Department as to this disabled soldier of sixteen years' service?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, he was sorry there had been a delay in getting the Medical Report on this matter. He stated the facts of the case on a former occasion, and the hon. Gentleman would remember that he then said he would get a full Medical Report. That had not yet been put into his hands; but he understood it would be in a day or two, or, at all events, in a very short time. Enough, however, was known to show that the man was practically helpless and had been thoroughly disabled, from whatever cause. Without entering into the merits of the case, he would recommend that something should be done for the man after leaving the hospital.

POOR LAW (METROPOLIS)—SHORE-DITCH WORKHOUSE.—QUESTION.
MR. PULESTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Local Government Inspector on the condition of Shoreditch

1907
Workhouse, where, it is stated decomposing bodies are brought into proximity with the wards of the infirmary, the health of the patients and of the people of the neighbourhood being endangered thereby; whether action can be taken to ensure the immediate erection of a suitable mortuary; and, whether, in view of the importance of the matter, he will consider the desirability of causing special inquiries to be made in other crowded districts, with the object of enforcing such sanitary regulations as will prevent the evils above referred to?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, that, with respect to the first part of the Question of the hon. Member, the Report of the Inspector had been brought under his (Mr. Sclater-Booth's) notice, having in fact being addressed to himself. There could be no doubt that the mortuary of the Shoreditch Work-house had been unduly and improperly made use of by the Vestry, with the permission of the Guardians, for purposes for which the Vestry was bound to provide accommodation of its own. As soon as the attention of the Guardians was called to circumstances set out in the Report of the Inspector, notice was given to the Vestry that the mortuary could no longer be used for the purposes of the parish. With regard to the second part of the Question, he had received a letter from the Vestry Clerk of the parish to the effect, that after great difficulties the Vestry had succeeded in making arrangements which would enable them within a short period to provide a mortuary for their own use. The House would not be surprised that there had been some difficulty and delay, seeing that there was no power of compulsory purchase of land for mortuaries. With reference to the third part of the Question, in one of the new provisions of the Public Health Act, now before Parliament, he had taken power for the Local Government Board to compel local authorities to provide mortuaries where they were required. But his hon. Friend was probably aware that that part of the provisions of the Public Health Bill did not extend to the metropolis. In other crowded localities, however, it was his intention to make inquiries and assure himself that mortuaries were provided wherever there seemed to be a necessity for them.

ARMY—NORTH TIPPERARY MILITIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STACPOOLEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that the senior Captain of the North Tipperary Light Infantry Regiment of Militia was absent from the training of the regiment in the year 1874 upon a sick certificate; whether in this year, having applied for sick leave, a medical board was asked for to report upon his fitness for service, and that pursuant to its report he was ordered to join his regiment forthwith; and, whether he has declined to do so; and, if so, is he still retained on the list of Captains of the North Tipperary Regiment?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, it was true that the person referred to was absent from the training of the regiment. The Medical Board reported that he was fit for service, and he was ordered to join his regiment; but it appeared that the medical report was not made in sufficiently explicit terms. The officer in question still said he was unable to attend to the training, and the Medical Board had been ordered to make another report on the subject.

MEDICAL ACT, 1858—UNQUALIFIED MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. OWEN LEWISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the report of an inquest held on Monday July 19th, before Dr. Hardwicke, Coroner for Central Middlesex, and Dr. Danford Thomas, his deputy, on the body of Emma Jane Plain, aged nine months, when the jury returned the following verdict:—
  "That Emma Jane Plain died from the mortal effects of diarrhœa, and that such death was from natural causes; but the jury desire to draw attention to the fact that the deceased received medical treatment at a dispensary in Copenhagen Street, where medicines were administered by an irresponsible unqualified medical practitioner. The jury further wish to add that a dispensary under unqualified medical men, and under the management of irresponsible persons, must be fraught with danger to the community."
  Whether it is legal for such unqualified persons to administer medicines and visit patients as the proprietor of the dispensary in Copenhagen Street admits having done; and, whether some steps

  1909
  should not be taken to prevent the poor being imposed upon by such persons?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, Ms attention had been called to the inquest in this unfortunate case. The law in regard to this matter was much discussed at the time of passing the Medical Acts, and the law now was, that if an unqualified person held out in any form or shape that he was a qualified practitioner, then he was liable to punishment, otherwise not. The subject was one which came within the province of the Lord President of the Council, and he (Mr. Cross) would bring it to his attention, so that he might consider the whole case.

THE IRISH FISHERIES DEPARTMENT.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN NOLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to the recommendation contained in the Report of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries (presented on the 3rd July) that a cutter or steamboat should be attached to their department to enable its heads to enforce the present Fishery Laws, and to further develop the fisheries; and, if he intends to give effect to this recommendation?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, his attention had been called to the recommendation referred to. The same subject was brought under his notice last summer, and he made inquiries into it then. It appeared that assistance was invariably given by the Admiralty on the requisition of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries whenever they required the assistance of a gunboat for the prosecution of any inquiry connected with the fisheries. But, considering all the circumstances, it did not appear to him that any necessity had been shown for the attendance of a gunboat, except in special circumstances. In the present Report the Inspectors had given fresh and different reasons why permanent assistance should be given. He would make further inquiries into the matter, and if it appeared necessary to do so, he would communicate with the First Lord of the Admiralty on the subject.

ARMY—THE HYDE PARK MAGAZINE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. R. YORKEasked the Secretary of State for War, To state to the
  1910
  House what is the quantity of gunpowder usually stored in the Hyde Park magazine; and, what precautions are used during its transport through the metropolis?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that he was rather glad to relieve the minds of certain timid riders and drivers from the dread of being blown up in passing the magazine in Hyde Park. That magazine had never any store of gunpowder in it at all, except in the shape of small arms ammunition, and it had been proved by most careful experiments that that kind of ammunition would not blow up én masse, and if one cartridge exploded it would not necessarily affect the others. It was, therefore, not considered necessary to take any special precautions. The removal of the cartridges to the magazine was always accompanied by an escort.
  MR. J. R. YORKEasked the right hon. Gentleman to state what number of cartridges were stored there?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, it was 1,500,000.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND)
(re-committed) BILL [Lords]—[BILL 222.]
(Mr. Disraeli.)

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 22nd July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 6 (Time in which improvement exhausted).
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 9, after the word "shall," to insert the words "not in any case."—(Colonel Wilson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked the Government to explain distinctly the reasons why they had assented to what was unquestionably the most important change in the Bill since it left the House of Lords? As this clause came from the Upper House the occupiers of land were to be entitled to a particular term of years for each class of improvements, but now that term was to be a maximum, and so much less than the term might be given, but not more. The clause was a definition of unexhausted improvements, and a great many of the articles

  1911
  in Class I would not be exhausted in 20 years. The making of bridges and construction of buildings would not be exhausted in that time, although upon the face of the Bill these improvements would be deemed to be then exhausted. Such a provision would lay the foundation of future discontent. If a tenant erected substantial buildings which were in good order at the end of 20 years, and if he received no compensation for them, he would feel it to be rather hard. If what was meant was that, although the improvement had not been exhausted, the tenant had been sufficiently remunerated, then why did they not say so, and, instead of calling it a Bill to secure compensation for unexhausted improvements, call it a tenants' remuneration Bill, which was a very different thing?
  MR. HUNTsaid, his hon. and learned Friend was not very accurate in the history which he had given of the clause. The Amendment, so far from being a change in the Bill as it came down from the House of Lords, was rather a return to the Bill as it was first brought into the House. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT said, he meant since the Bill had been read a second time.] Exception was taken to the letting value as the basis of compensation, and the change which had been, in consequence, made in the Bill interfered with its elasticity as regarded the term of years during which improvements continued unexhausted. The Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wilson) would make the term of years not a fixed and certain term, but a maximum term within which there should be a certain elasticity. The period of 20 years had been agreed upon as the measure of the term for which improvements were to be considered unexhausted, the object being not to burden the remainderman to a greater extent than was necessary. His hon. and learned Friend observed that good and substantial buildings might be unexhausted at the end of 20 years; but it was not likely that a tenant could erect any buildings to last more than 20 years, without a special agreement with the landlord, giving him compensation for his outlay beyond the terms of this Bill. His hon. and learned Friend appeared in the character of "the farmers' friend," but he (Mr. Hunt) must point out that the farmers' friends, as repre-
  1912
  sented in the Central Chamber of Agriculture, asked for 20 years' compensation.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he hoped they would not bandy words from one side of the House to the other, as to who were or who were not "farmers friends." With regard to the Amendment, he thought, in the first place, that the whole clause was unnecessary, and that the matter might well be left to the referees and umpire to decide how much of the improvement remained unexhausted. But if the clause were to stand, the argument of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) was logically just, that there should be no limit as against the tenant. A building might be put up which would only last 10 or 12 years—in that case the landlord was safe under the Amendment, but if one was put up which lasted 25 years, the tenant had no protection. But looking at the matter as a practical man, no doubt in the vast majority of cases no such buildings would be put up save under special agreement. Then, without saying a word against the class of valuers from whom the referees would be chosen, they were generally farmers themselves or connected with farmers, and as their leaning would be rather towards the tenant than the landlord, the former would generally get a full term allowed him. Moreover, if the consent of the landlord was to be necessary to these improvements, that consent might be refused if the charge upon the estate was to be for an indefinite period, and therefore they might, by allowing it to be so, prevent those very improvements which they wished to encourage. He therefore preferred the Amendment endorsed by the Government, and if there was to be restriction at all, he would rather have it in the form of this Amendment, which he would presently use as an argument why one of his own ought to be adopted.
  MR. PAGETsuggested that the clause would be more rational if it declared that the claim for compensation for an improvement, rather than the improvement itself, should be deemed to be exhausted.
  MR. PELLsaid, that improvements which would not be exhausted in 20 years were rarely made without substantial co-operation on the part of the

  1913
  landlord, who often found the material when the tenant found the labour.
  MR. WELBYsaid, that, on the contrary, he had known a tenant at his own expense lay out more than he would recoup in 20 years.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that though hon. Members opposite were taunted with not being the "farmers' friends," they took the same view as Mr. Pusey, who he presumed was entitled to that character. He wished to know whether the hon. and learned Attorney General had formed any opinion as to how the rights of the tenants under the Emblements Act would be affected by this clause?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that it did not appear to him that the law of emblements had anything to do with the particular question under the consideration of the Committee, which was simply as to the respective periods during which improvements of the several classes were, for the purpose of ascertaining compensation, to be deemed as continuing unexhausted. The object of the Amendment was to carry out the strongly-expressed feeling of the House, and to fix a maximum number of years, beyond which the arbitrator could not in any case go, but leaving it to him to determine the proper period, within that limit, in each case as it arose.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTprotested against the statement that the change had been made in consequence of the strongly-expressed feeling of the House. The Government were conducting the Business in a manner which suggested that they were confounding what had taken place at meetings of the supporters of the Government with what had been done in the House, where the question had not been discussed. The First Minister had announced the withdrawal when bringing down the measure from the other House.
  MR. HUNTcontended that it was purely a question of drafting.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. KNIGHTmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 9, after "Act," to insert "and in the absence of any special agreement as hereinafter provided for." They had now got a Bill embodying the Lincolnshire principle, which had worked well for three generations. He had taken the words of his Amendment from Mr. Pusey's Bills on tenants' compensation.
  1914
  All those Bills contained a main proposition and an alternative one. The main proposition was, that the tenants should be reimbursed, and that the outlay should be divided over a series of years. Mr. Pusey's alternative proposition was, that persons who wished to make special agreements with their tenants under the Act should be allowed to do so. The present Bill adopted Mr. Pusey's main proposition; but the alternative proposition was, that if landlords wished to make a special agreement with their tenants they should be left out of the Act. Now he contended that there ought to be two sets of special agreements, one outside the Act, and another to meet cases in which the landlords were ready to give their tenants a Schedule with a fair compensation, but not to be thereby left out of the Act. If the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for West Suffolk (Colonel Wilson) had not been carried, Lincolnshire would have been out of the Act. The House had by a majority of four to one decided against the compulsory principle; but if the Bill passed in its present shape all his friends whom he had consulted intended to contract themselves out of the Act, except, indeed, his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he did not think that the words proposed would, if inserted, add to the force or effect of the Bill. If such, however, were the case, it would be necessary that corresponding words should be added to other clauses. He would suggest that they should wait till they came to consider Clause 45, when the whole question could be discussed, and if the Committee were of opinion that additional words were required to give effect to the intention of his hon. Friend, they could be added in that clause, and any corresponding Amendments in other clauses could be made on the Report.
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, that he proposal was one the principle of which he had more than once advocated within the last three weeks. The power of contracting out was the defect which would make the Bill waste paper. He held in his hand a notice to quit, which had been served on 100 farmers in anticipation of its passing.
  LORD ELCHO, while deprecating any alteration of the clause in the direction

  1915
  of contracts, considered the Amendment worthy of support, so far as it enabled persons to bring themselves within the operation of the Act.
  MR. GOLDSMIDhoped that the suggestion of the hon. and learned Attorney General would be acted upon, and that the Amendment would not be pressed.
  LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHsaid, that the statement of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Knight) to the effect that the friends he had spoken to intended to contract themselves out of the Act, was quite in accordance with his own experience. Even some noble Lords who had voted for the Bill in "another place" had made similar statements. It was worthy of consideration whether they were not dealing with the subject in a somewhat unscriptural manner—by laying upon other people's shoulders burdens too heavy to be borne, and not being themselves willing to touch them with the tip of their finger; while it might be that the First Lord of the Admiralty would be the one righteous man found among them.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONconsidered the statement made by the hon. and learned Attorney General satisfactory as far as it went; but the question of contracting out of the Bill was too important to be lightly passed over, and he thought they ought to have some definite assurance from the Government as to the alteration they proposed to make in Clause 45. As there was a reference in another clause to agreements outside the Bill, he wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government so to alter the 45th clause as to give agreements entered into between landlords and tenants equal force with the provisions of this Bill?
  MR. HUNTsaid, he understood the proposal of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Mr. Knight) to be that if the landlord and tenant were anxious to avail themselves of the provisions of the Bill to a certain extent only, or wished to define more clearly than the Bill did for what improvements compensation should be given, they should have the right to enter into such an agreement, and still be able to use the machinery of the Bill in other respects. It was the wish of the Government, in framing the 45th clause, to give landlords and tenants
  1916
  such a power; and, if the clause did not go far enough in that direction, he should be happy to amend it so as to ensure the attainment of that object. Not only ought parties to be allowed to contract themselves entirely out of the Bill, but they should be permitted to make special agreements within it so as to entitle them to all the advantages which the machinery of the Bill could afford them.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTinquired whether the parties entering into special agreements outside the Bill would in such cases have the advantages of Clauses 34, 35, and 36, the most valuable part of it, and be enabled, under these special agreements, to charge the inheritance?
  MR. CHAPLINhoped that Her Majesty's Government would not give any pledge as to amending a clause until the clause was reached. Although he believed that 99 landlords out of 100 would contract themselves out of the Bill, he considered it a most valuable measure, because, in future, tenants throughout the country would enjoy security either under it or under specific agreements adapted to their wants or the circumstances of their particular locality, and based upon the principles laid down in the Bill. It was ludicrous, therefore, to suppose that the tenant farmers of England were so blind to their own interests that they would deprive themselves of the advantages they would possess under the Bill.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he should like to know precisely what was to be done with the 45th clause before they parted with the Amendment?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he thought that the promise which had been made by his right hon. Friend ought to satisfy the Committee. There was no difficulty in understanding what the hon. Member for West Worcestershire wanted. His object was to give the parties the option of using the machinery of the Bill or not; but although it might be right to allow the landlord and tenant to enter into such contracts as they might think fit, excluding wholly or in part the provisions of the Bill, it would not, in his opinion, be right to confer upon them power to charge the inheritance by virtue of contracts which were entirely beyond the scope of the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENmoved an Amendment, the object of which was to extend the term during which compensation should be given for improvements in the second class from seven years to ten years. He called attention to the evidence given before the Select Committee in 1848 on "agricultural customs," wherein witnesses declared that chalking and marling were improvements not exhausted in seven years, some giving ten, and some as much as 20 years, as the period at which they had themselves seen the effects of such improvements. As they were now only fixing a maximum, this could be no injury to landlords, and it would be a graceful concession to tenant-farmers. Moreover, the Farmers' Club had earnestly pressed for this concession.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 14, to leave out the word "seven," in order to insert the word "ten."—(Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen.)
  MR. HUNTadmitted that there was room for difference of opinion as to the length of time the benefit of these improvements lasted, but the Central Chamber of Agriculture had taken seven years, and he thought it a very fair maximum.
  MR. PEASEsaid, that when the time to be fixed by the valuers was governed by the words "not exceeding," they might make the clause more elastic. Agriculture was a rapidly progressive science, and every encouragement should be given to scientific farming and the application of more capital.
  MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONthought they were taking a great deal of care of the outgoing and very little of the incoming tenant.
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDadmitted that the Central Chamber of Agriculture was an important body, but he did not think the Bill they had put forward could be quoted as strong evidence in that House. The farmers on the Eastern side of England attached a good deal of importance to this point.
  MR. DODSONsaid, the Lincolnshire Chamber of Agriculture and some other bodies advocated this extension of time, and in the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Bead) in conjunction with Mr. Howard, 10 years were allowed for durable improvements. As the result of the Amend-
  1918
  ment already accepted by the Government would be to make the number of years stated the maximum number, there need be no hesitation in making this concession.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, there was considerable difference between the Schedule in this Bill and the Schedule in Mr. Howard's Bill of 1873. A good many of the improvements mentioned in the latter were taken out of the second and put in the first class in this Bill.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, some of these improvements did not begin to tell for two or three years. On moorland, for instance, liming did not tell until after three years.
  MR. KNIGHTbelieved that a seven years term would be a proper allowance for lime laid on pasture land, and four years on arable land.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, his experience was that the liming of lands was exhausted in about seven years, while marling lasted ten years. There could be no harm in allowing that maximum.
  COLONEL DYOTThoped the Government would not give way by accepting the Amendment.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that there was danger in legislating for England according to the customs of any particular county. Legislation on this subject was sure after a time to be made compulsory, and he respectfully warned his brother landlords in that House that if they did not now act in a generous and liberal manner they would not only have this Bill hereafter made compulsory, but probably a much stronger one substituted for it. Talking of different counties, in Kent the chalk was brought from a distance down to the clay lands and much expense incurred in the process.
  MR. PELLwas inclined to think there was sound sense in the Amendment. He thought the Government might very well accept it seeing that they had already accepted that of the hon. and gallant Member for West Suffolk. In some cases seven years would not exhaust the advantage gained, and as the allowance to be made would rest with the arbitrators, there was no reason why the Amendment should not be accepted.
  MR. CHAPLINhoped, after the Amendment which had been already

  1919
  adopted, the Government would be disposed to accept the one before the Committee.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSON, on the other hand, expressed a hope the Government would resist the Amendment.
  Question put, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 196; Noes 133: Majority 63.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that the Bill as it stood, provided compensation for improvements in the third class, which calculated according to the two years' scale, would be, in the case of artificial manures, half as much again, and of feeding stuffs three times as much again as was now paid by the Lincolnshire custom, which many people thought too much. He would take a farm of 500 acres, on which the compensation under the Lincolnshire custom would be £625, but under the Bill as it now stood the compensation would amount to £1,500. If they did not take great care they would be creating a tenant-right so exceedingly heavy that it would be almost impossible for an incoming tenant to pay it. It would simplify matters very much if the Government would adopt his proposal, which he put under three heads—manures, cake, and feeding stuffs not produced on the farm, and on this scale—for artificial manures, the whole sum properly laid out by last year's tenant; for cake one-half of the sum properly laid out during the last year, subject to no restriction; and for feeding stuffs not produced on the holding, he would give such proportion not exceeding one-half as had been properly laid out, which would fairly represent at the termination of the tenancy the manurial value to the incoming tenant. With this view he would move as an Amendment, in page 3, line 15, the omission of "two years," and the insertion of "one year."
  MR. HUNTsaid, he sympathized with the intention of the Amendment, and quite admitted that his hon. Friend was right in his anxiety not to make the burden too heavy upon the incoming tenant. But what they had to consider was, whether one year would really satisfy the justice of the claims in all cases, and the Government had arrived at the conclusion that it would not, especially in the case of a Lady-Day tenancy. There was a certain amount of dissatisfaction
  1920
  with the wording of the 8th clause, and it was, that the taking the outlay simply, even with a deduction of the profit which the tenant himself had derived, was too excessive a mode of dealing with the question in regard to third-class improvements. Various Amendments on the Paper were to the effect that manurial value should be taken, and, after great consideration, the Government had come to the conclusion that that was a just view. In this clause he proposed to insert the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter Barttelot) for including hay, and on the same principle he would add seeds; so that the last paragraph would read thus—
  "Where it is of the third class, the end of two years, or the taking of a crop of corn, seed, hay, or potatoes (whichever first happens)."
  It was also proposed that Clause 8 should be amended by the insertion of the following words—
  "The amount of the tenant's compensation in respect of improvements of the third class shall (subject to the provisions of this Act) be such proportion of the sum properly laid out by the tenant on the improvement as fairly represents the manurial value thereof to an incoming tenant."
  That would extend to the whole of the three classes of the improvements, and the rest of the clause would be omitted.
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDcongratulated the right hon. Gentleman upon the proposed change in the 8th clause. He thought it would meet the common-sense view of the case, and get rid of a great many difficult details.
  MR. PELLpreferred the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lincolnshire.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTconcurred entirely with the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) as to the effect of the clause, but he was afraid that making it one year instead of two would not remove the difficulty. It would not prevent controversy as to which field the manure had been put upon, and they would have to identify the land.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALwas unable to see the force of the criticism of his hon. and learned Friend.
  MR. PEASEsaid, the excellent Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman in the 8th clause would accomplish all he had been striving for,

  1921
  and would make a wonderful improvement in the Bill.
  MR. KNIGHTdisapproved of manurial valuation, and thought if they adopted the Lincolnshire custom the clause would be as perfect as it could be made.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENbelieved the question was one which had better be left to referees and umpires who could decide what was really the manurial value.
  MR. BEACHconsidered the Amendment proposed by the Government a very proper solution of the difficulty.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, the difference between this proposal and that which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) was about to substitute for Clause 8 was not very great. It was whether the compensation for manurial value of the third class should be given for one year's application or two. He felt satisfied that if compensation were allowed for two years, such a discretion would be given to the valuers that tenant-right might become a much heavier burden than it ought to be.
  MR. DODSONsaid, a tenant-right existed in his county (Sussex) which was a great deal older than that of Lincolnshire. The difference was that the Lincolnshire tenant-right was a very sensible and good one, and that the Sussex tenant-right was a very bad one. Looking at all the circumstances, he believed with the hon. Gentleman who proposed the Amendment, that compensation for manurial value should be given for one year only.
  MR. PELLsaid, the probability was, as matters were tending, that the tenant would get no compensation at all.
  MR. FLOYERrecommended the House to abide by the clause.
  MR. CLARE READagreed that, after a crop of corn had been taken, it was most difficult to say what the manurial value was. At the same time there were certain manures, such as rape-cake and greaves, which were certainly not exhausted in one year. After full consideration, he preferred the proposal made by the Government in the Bill to that of his hon. Friend.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, the object of his Amendment was of immense importance in his opinion; but, as there was so much diversity of opinion expressed about it, he would consent to withdraw
  1922
  it, and so save the Committee the trouble of dividing.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. STORERmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 15, to leave out all the words after the words "two years" to the end of the clause. The effect of the clause as it now stood would be to deprive a tenant who raised a crop of corn or potatoes off any part of his farm of all right to compensation, and this, he thought, would in many cases inflict hardship on the outgoing tenant.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, to leave out from the word "years," in line 15, to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Storer.)
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that he thought the term of "two years" might be left without additional words, as had been the terms of 20 and 7 years respectively in the other classes, and the details left to the referees, words being inserted to direct them to ascertain what amount of unexhausted value remained for the incoming tenant. He urged the hon. Member to persevere in his Amendment.
  MR. CLARE READobserved, that in eases of difficulty it would be better to give the doubt in favour of the incoming tenant. He hoped the Committee would adopt the clause as it stood.
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOTexpressed a hope that the Committee would not consent to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire. In West Sussex they had bought up all the old customs, and it was now sought by this Amendment to bring them back again. About two years ago he purchased a farm of 190 acres, and had to pay on a valuation a sum of £978. How could a tenant entering upon the land on such terms hope to make anything out of it? In the case he referred to, he extinguished the custom, bearing the loss himself.
  MR. GREGORYwas in a position to affirm what his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter Barttelot) had said as to the hardship of the custom referred to upon an incoming tenant. One of his farms fell in some time since, and the valuation was so oppressive to the succeeding tenant that he at once extinguished the custom by purchase.
  Question put, "That the words 'or the taking of a crop' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 248; Noes 98: Majority 150.
  MR. HUNTmoved in page 3, line 16, after "corn" to insert "seed" and "hay," so as to provide that an improvement should be deemed exhausted where it was of the third class, at the end of two years, or the taking of a crop of corn, seed, hay, or potatoes.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 16, after the word "corn," to insert the words "seed, hay."—(Mr. Hunt.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked for some explanation of what was intended by the term "seed?"
  MR. CLARE READsaid, it might include turnip seed, and every kind of agricultural seed that exhausted land.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENinquired whether it might include clover seed?
  MR. GOLDSMIDsuggested that the Government should consider this classification before the Report. It would not be easy to prepare a complete list of "exhausting crops." Many had not been mentioned a all—as, for example, horse-radish and onions. Whole fields of these were grown, and they greatly exhausted the land.
  COLONEL MUREsaid, they would do well to stop at crops, and say, "any crops to which manure is supplied" ought to be taken into consideration by the valuer, because it would be unwise to specify some crops and leave out others.
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOThad put the Amendment down, as he thought it a very important one. He would also say some seeds exhausted the land much more than other seeds.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENapproved of the suggestion that a general power should be given to the valuer.
  MR. MARLINGsuggested that a crop of teazles should be added.
  MR. STORERsaid "seed or hay," if inserted, would not meet the difficulty; for there was a score of other crops he could mention, such as chickory, flax, and mustard, all of which should be considered, and as it was hardly possible to specify all the crops, why not say, after the word "taking," "any existing crop
  1924
  from land to which manure made or purchased during the last year shall have been applied? "
  MR. GOLDSMIDthought it would be better to stop at the word "crops," instead of attempting to particularize what those crops were.
  MR. HUNTbelieved that the word "seed" would include the crops which had been mentioned, except teazles.
  MR. PELLsaid, the landlord would not be doing his duty either to himself or his tenant if he did not bar the growing of particular crops.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsuggested that, as it was impossible to insert all the crops, the Committee had better trust to the Government to get out of the difficulty in the best way they could on the Report.
  MR. PELLthought it was hardly fair to get the landlord out of the difficulty when he could get out of it himself.
  MR. MUNTZasked why the Committee should insert the words at all. Crops of Kohl Rabi and cabbages exhausted land more than anything else.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENpointed out the difficulty into which Government had brought the House by persisting in definitions of various "exhaustive" crops instead of using general words and leaving the matter to be settled by the valuers. He hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Pell) who had spoken for and voted against a recent Amendment would this time have the courage of his opinions, and speak and vote the same way.
  Question put," That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 265; Noes 77: Majority 188.
  MR. STORERproposed, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 16, to insert after "corn," "or any exhausting crop from land to which manures made or purchased during the last year shall have been applied."
  MR. HUNTsaid, he could not accept the words proposed, but he would be ready to agree to the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Heygate) to insert the words "or other exhausting crop."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Motion of Mr. HEYGATE, Amendment made in page 3, line 16, by insert-

  1925
  ing after the word "potatoes" the words "or other exhausting crop."
  On Motion of Mr. KNIGHT, preceding Amendment amended by adding after the word "crop," the words "not consumed on the holding."
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENexpressed his regret that more than half-an-hour had been wasted before the Government would concede, as they had now done, the point for which he had all along been contending.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Amount of tenant's compensation for first and second class).
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved an Amendment to provide that the amount of the tenant's compensation for improvements of the first class should be the sum laid out so far as it added to the letting value; and that in the second and third class it should be the sum laid out so far as unexhausted and of value to a succeeding occupier. He said the Government had accepted the principle of the Amendment for the third class, and why should they not do so in respect of the other two classes?
  MR. HUNTsaid, it was true they had adopted it partially for the third class, which affected mainly the incoming tenant; but the other two classes affected the landlord, and were therefore dealt with differently. As the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rodwell) had an Amendment on the Paper which distinguished between each class of improvements, he would suggest to the hon. Member to postpone his Amendment until such time as the other was considered.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLacquiesced in the suggestion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. RODWELLmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 18, to leave out "or of the second." In the previous discussion he understood from the Government that the limit of "letting value" was only introduced into the Bill to preserve the rights of the remainderman. But the present clause, as it now stood, dealt with the first and second classes in the same way—
  "So that the amount of the compensation shall not in any case exceed a capital sum fairly representing the addition of which the improvement, as far as it is unexhausted at the determi-
  1926
  nation of the tenancy, then makes to the value value of the holding."
  He now proposed an Amendment separating the first class from the second. The first class were essentially landlords' improvements extending over a considerable time. The second were tenants' improvements, and the subjects of compensation in which, in many cases, the landlord did not interfere at all. The restriction, therefore of "the letting value of the holding" was unnecessary in the first class, except in cases where the landlord was only the limited owner. He proposed to remove the second-class improvements, which extended over a short period, altogether out of the operation of the "letting value" restriction.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that the proposed Amendment was consistent with the scope of the Bill. It was, however, important that the remainderman should be protected, as it would be obviously unjust that a landlord and tenant should have it in their power to execute some considerable improvement, and charge it upon the inheritance, if the remainderman reaped no benefit from it. He was, therefore, prepared to accept the hon. and learned Member's Amendments when the Committee came to them. The present was a verbal Amendment to open the door to the ulterior and important one he had in view, to which he (Mr. Hunt) not object.
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, lines 19 and 20, to omit the words "a deduction of one-twentieth," and substitute "as far as it addds to the letting value of the holding at the determination of the tenancy."
  And it being now ten minutes to Seven of the clock,
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONexpressed a hope that before the Committee was resumed on Monday, the Government would place on the Paper the Amendments which they proposed to insert in Clause 45.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he did not know whether it was possible to put them in the Paper that evening. He was afraid it was not, but he would put them in the Paper as soon as possible.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he was afraid they would not reach the clause on Monday.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he was afraid not, unless, indeed, the noble Lord gave them his assistance.
  It being now Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

METROPOLIS—THE THAMES EMBANKMENT AND THE NEW NATIONAL OPERA HOUSE.—RESOLUTION.
COLONEL BERESFORD, in rising to call the attention of the House to the intended encroachment on the Thames Embankment by the erection of the new Opera House; and to move—
"That, in allowing the building frontage on the Thames Embankment to be advanced to within thirty feet of the roadway, the Metropolitan Board of Works is acting in contravention of the policy intended to be affirmed by the Resolution of this House on the 8th day of July 1870, whereby the Embankment was secured as an open space for the use of the people,"
said, that in asking the attention of the House to the subject-matter of the Motion, he wished to clear away all doubts as to the specific object of it, by broadly stating that he objected to the advance by 75 feet towards the Embankment of the building frontage of the New National Opera House, and he fearlessly asserted that it was a most wanton and gratuitous act on the part of the Metropolitan Board of Works. It was desirable that he should refresh the memories of hon. Members who were in the House in 1870, and enlighten those Members who entered the House for the first time in 1874 as to proceedings in that House on the question of reclaimed land and open spaces. In 1862 a Bill, promoted by the Government of the day, was brought in by the then First Commissioner of Works, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple), which, amongst other things, provided—
1928
"That, after payment had been made to the Crown for the foreshore, and to the Conservators of the Thames, all land which lay between the property of ordinary owners and the foreshores of the river was vested in the Metropolitan Board of Works, who were charged with the duty of maintaining it for ever as land for the purpose of public recreation and amusement;" and further, that "all open spaces possible were to be retained in the metropolis."
Now, the land upon which a portion of the National Opera House was proposed to be built answered to the description given—that was, in respect to the advance of 75 feet, for the entire cost of the recovery of that land fell upon the ratepayers of the metropolis generally. He would mention that another and much more recent case, as confirmatory of the policy of 1862, occurred in 1870, when the late Government intimated their intention of erecting public offices on a portion of the Embankment at Charing Cross, eastward of the site intended for the National Opera House. To defeat that attempt by the Government to override the object set forth in 1862, the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) brought the proposal before the House, having placed the following Notice of Motion on the Paper:—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be pleased to direct that no public offices be erected on that portion of the Thames Embankment which is reserved to the Crown, and which has been reclaimed from the River at the cost of the Ratepayers of the Metropolis."
That Motion was resisted in a long speech by the Prime Minister of the day, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), and by his Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the London University (Mr. Lowe); but despite them, the supporters of the Motion were three to one in favour of it, and it was carried by a majority of 50 exactly, and amongst those who voted were 16 Members of the present Government, including three Cabinet Ministers. Looking at The Times of the Monday following the division, he found it referred to that event as "the glorious defeat of the Government." He felt confident that no hon. Member of the House would deny that the result of that division had been to confer a great boon upon the people of the metropolis. It was impossible for any right-minded man to walk down the Embankment and

1929
view the open space with its gardens and walks, upon which it was proposed to erect public buildings, without admitting that the hon. Gentleman the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury was richly entitled to the gratitude of every frequenter of that spot. Those Parliamentary proceedings went to prove the desire which existed amongst the people for open spaces and fresh air; and he invited the attention of the House to the case he was about to submit for its consideration in respect of the encroachment by the National Opera House—an encroachment which he did not hesitate to repeat was most gratuitous and wanton in its character. Some months back the Metropolitan Board of Works let the piece of vacant ground abutting on Cannon Row, and lying between Richmond Mews and the garden of No. 1, Richmond Terrace—which garden extended to the Embankment footpath—on the east side, and the ground occupied by the buildings and garden of the Civil Service Commissioners on the west side, to a Mr. Goldstein, Mr. Kent, and Mr. Buhner at an annual rental, he believed, of £3,000 per annum. At about the centre of the ground, and abutting on Cannon Bow, were two houses which extended about 56 feet in the direction of the Embankment, with a frontage of about 37 feet. The Board of Works made no condition with the lessee, Mr. Bulmer, as to the removal of the said two houses. The lessee having obtained possession of the ground, sold the lease of it to Mr. Mapleson, and obtained a premium for the lease of £10,000, in round figures. Finding himself in possession of the ground, Mr. Mapleson was immediately confronted by the serious obstacle in proceeding with the erection of the Opera House presented by the two houses in Cannon Bow. In this emergency, he applied to the Board of Works to sanction his advancing the site for the Opera House by 75 feet in the direction of the Embankment. The Board conceded the advance, and it was on learning that fact that he (Colonel Beresford) put a Question on the Paper for May 24 last, asking if Mr. Mapleson would not acquire thereby an additional available space—meaning by available additional ground to erect buildings on—of, in round figures, 9,000 feet. That Question was answered by the hon. and gallant
1930
Gentleman the Chairman of the Board of Works in a way which was calculated, he would not say intended, to mislead, and did mislead, the House, for he (Sir James Hogg) stated that Mr. Mapleson had been called upon to make a roadway on either side of the Opera House, after allowing for which he would be a loser of 360 square feet. This was an utter delusion, in point of fact, and Mr. Mapleson had, according to the plan which had been given on the subject, in round figures, gained 4,650 square feet by the exchange of available ground, for which he had not paid a farthing. In consequence of the tenour of that reply, he followed up his first Inquiry with another on the 7th of June, the answer to which still more mystified the House, and was, to use the mildest word, incorrect. He was, of course, confining his inquiry to available, that was, building ground. He allowed, for the moment, the space occupied by the two side roads, so far as the building extended, and the figures and loss of square feet alleged by the Chairman of the Board could only be made out by including the area of the side roads when continued beyond the front of the building up to the Embankment footpath. But what about the "inducement" which was paraded before the House as a very virtuous proceeding to warrant the Board in conceding the advance of 75 feet? He asserted emphatically that, without any inducement whatever, Mr. Mapleson, for his own purposes, must have made side roads, or one 40 foot side road; and he would go further, and tell the House that if Mr. Mapleson could have dispensed with side entrances altogether to the Opera House and side roads, the Lord Chamberlain would have insisted upon roads being made, or would have refused to licence the house. So much for the vaunted inducement. With regard to the two houses, the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board alleged the inability of Mr. Mapleson to arrange for their purchase. It was, in fact, simply a question of money, and he submitted that the Board of Works deserved the censure of that House for not having obtained possession of and for not having removed them before they dealt with the land. On that Friday he expected his Motion first to come on, but was debarred by the lateness of the hour, on that very day. Everything else having been

1931
previously settled, the two houses Mr. Mapleson could not arrange for changed hands, and again Mr. Bulmer became the owner for himself, or on behalf of Mr. Mapleson, and he believed that gentleman had let the ground at a considerable rental for the erection of a Royal Academy of Music. It was a most unbusiness-like proceeding on the part of the Metropolitan Board that they should have been deluded into this grant of 75 feet of additional frontage, on the plea that Mr. Mapleson could not get these houses. Money in this country could do anything, and the proof here was that Mr. Mapleson had now secured the houses. The proceeding on the part of the Board of Works was in direct opposition to Sections 10 and 1 of 19 & 20 Vict., c. 112, which gave power to the Metropolitan Board of Works
"to provide parks, pleasure-grounds, places of recreation, and open spaces for the improvement of the metropolis or the public benefit of the inhabitants."
Now, he asked, although the front of the proposed Opera House might be made as handsome as they pleased, was the bringing up to within 30 feet of the Embankment footpath a building 75 feet high or thereabouts—shutting out light and air, throwing darkness over the gardens adjoining on the east side, and, indeed, on all sides but the front—was this "an improvement to the metropolis or for the public benefit of the inhabitants?" Surely, such a proceeding could never have been intended. The space between the Embankment roadway and the building frontage had been pretty closely preserved, and was chiefly laid out in public gardens, and he confidently submitted that this infringement on the 105 feet reserved would be a serious damage to the occupiers of houses in the immediate vicinity, who would be shut out by the gigantic walls of the proposed house from any view of the Embankment, and would be deprived of light and air also. He had still something to add to complete his case against the Metropolitan Board of Works. Poor unfortunate Mr. Mapleson was not allowed to become lessee of the ground, and to erect the Opera House without being provided by the Board with an architect and a contractor. The former official, in the person of Mr. Fowler, a member of the Board and Chairman of the Board's
1932
Buildings Committee, was thrust upon Mr. Mapleson, and the Board further compelled the unhappy man to employ a contractor to get out the foundation nominated by the Board. These doings were in violation of the Metropolitan Local Management Act,'1863, Section 64, whereby it was provided that
"no officer or servant of the Board shall in anywise be concerned or interested in any contract or work made with or executed for such Board."
It appeared also that Mr. Fowler was to be the architect of the Royal Academy of Music. He submitted that the Board had been guilty of a gross violation of the duties intrusted to them, and he hoped the House would mark its sense of their conduct by endorsing the Resolution. It was not too late to repair the injury that was about to be done, and he trusted the Government would call on the Metropolitan Board of Works to limit the frontage of the building to what was originally intended, which would be the line of all the other buildings along the Embankment. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
MR. SPEAKERinquired if any hon. Member seconded the Motion?
MR. BOORDsaid, he had not intended to interpose at that stage of the debate, but as the Representative of a large number of metropolitan ratepayers who were naturally interested in the administration of their affairs by the Metropolitan Board of Works, he would second the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark, sooner than allow it to drop without receiving the answer which he thought the House was entitled to expect from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Chairman of the Board. The principal charge contained in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark resolved itself into a simple sum in arithmetic. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had said that the Metropolitan Board of Works had made Mr. Mapleson a present of some 5,000 square feet of land, without any consideration whatever, and consequently at the expense of the ratepayers, and in proof of this he referred to a plan published by the Board when they were about to invite tenders for the property. Now, he (Mr. Boord) had had an opportunity of inspecting a copy of

1933
that plan, and had made a rough computation of the extent of the areas in question, with the following result:—The piece of land let, in the first instance, to a Mr. Bulmer, contained 41,190 feet; the additional piece conceded to enable Mr. Mapleson to advance his frontage 75 feet, contained 15,750 feet; making in all 56,940 feet; from this must he deducted the space, within the letting, to he occupied by two roads each 20 feet wide, 10,400 feet, leaving 46,540 feet as the extent of the area now in Mr. Mapleson's possession, which, it would be observed, was 5,350 feet more than the original letting, and it had been admitted that no increased rent or other consideration was to be paid. The figures just quoted varied slightly from those given by his hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board (Sir James Hogg) in answer to a Question put in the House on the subject; but even taking the hon. and gallant Gentleman's own figures, there were 3,830 feet absolutely given away. Another point worthy of the attention of the House was this. The Metropolitan Board had let this property to a certain person for a fixed rental, and that person had immediately disposed of his interest in it for £10,000. Now, if it was worth £10,000 more than the Metropolitan Board obtained for it, the question might fairly be asked—why was more care not exercised in the letting of this land so as to save that sum to the metropolitan ratepayers? He had observed that in one of the Bills, introduced this Session by the Metropolitan Board of Works, power was given to the authorities of the Inner and Middle Temples to erect certain turrets and bay windows on land which adjoined their property, and had been reclaimed from the river, the said turrets and windows to project not more than 10 feet on to such land. Now he wanted to know, if it was necessary to obtain the authority of Parliament for the Benchers of the Temple to advance 10 feet on the ground of the Embankment, how it was, that within a very short distance of that spot, the Metropolitan Board of Works of their own motion could give Mr. Mapleson permission to advance 75 feet? He was glad to see that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board had apparently fortified himself with
1934
voluminous materials for his reply, and he trusted he would be able to give a satisfactory explanation of these matters, in the absence of which such costly negligence on the part of the Metropolitan Board would inevitably shake public confidence in a body on whose prudence and watchfulness the comfort and security of the inhabitants of London were so largely dependent.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in allowing the building frontage on the Thames Embankment to be advanced to within thirty feet of the roadway, the Metropolitan Board of "Works is acting in contravention of the policy intended to be affirmed by the Resolution of this House on the 8th day of July 1870, whereby the Embankment was secured as an open space for the use of the people,"—(Colonel Beresford,)
—instead thereof.
SIR JAMES HOGGsaid, he would do his best in a short time to answer the numerous indictments against himself and the Metropolitan Board of Works. [An hon. MEMBER: Not against you.] As there appeared to be two counts, he would divide his answer into two parts; first, with regard to what had been called the encroachment; and, secondly, with respect to the meaning of the Resolution proposed in 1870 by his hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith). This was the first time he had heard of encroachment upon lands which belonged to one, or had been entrusted to one, by Parliament. He held in his hand an Act of Parliament, the 25th clause of which said that all land to be reclaimed from the river within certain specified boundaries, and not required for streets or roads, should be kept as an open space for the benefit of the inhabitants of the metropolis. That land was to the east, near Lord Salisbury's and the Metropolitan Railway, and the whole of it had been laid out in gardens in accordance with the Act. But there was a different portion of land which, by Clause 32, the Metropolitan Board were empowered to let or sell, and that was the part near Cannon Row. The Metropolitan Board, therefore, were only doing their duty to the ratepayers in selling it to the person who offered the best price. With regard to the Resolution of 1870, he contended that the test of its meaning was to be found in

1935
the Resolution drawn up by the late Prime Minister for the appointment of the Select Committee which sat the following year, and of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe), the noble Lord the Postmaster General (Lord John Manners), his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope), and his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) were Members. The Resolution was that—
"a Select Committee be appointed to inquire and report whether, having regard to the various rights and interests involved, it is expedient that the land reclaimed from the Thames, and lying between Whitehall Gardens and Whitehall Place should, in whole or in part, he appropriated for the advantage of the inhabitants of the Metropolis, and, in such case, in what manner such appropriation should be effected."
And the Committee decided—
"That the land belonging to the Crown, and defined on the plan accompanying the Report, should be so appropriated."
The exact space was accordingly specified on a plan which was printed along with the Report of the Committee, and how the hon. and gallant Member, with that plan in his hand, could fancy the land now in question had anything to do with the other land he could not conceive. He appealed to his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope) to say whether the Report had anything to do with the land near Cannon Row. This land was originally divided into two parts, and in November, 1873, tenders were invited. Only one was received, which was declined, because it did not come up to the price their land was thought worth. The architect was next directed to negotiate with several gentlemen who had privately signified their desire to become purchasers. None of them came up to the price, Again, in October, 1874, other tenders were invited, and one, that of Mr. Bulmer, for £3,000 was accepted, the valuation of the architect having been considerably below that sum. The Metropolitan Board of Works, therefore, had made a good bargain for the ratepayers. After a while Mr. Bulmer came and asked to transfer his rights to Mr. Mapleson. They made Mr. Bulmer complete his contract, and allowed him to hand it over to Mr. Mapleson. As Chairman of the Board, he was not bound to know
1936
what transactions had been entered into; their business was to let the land in the best way possible, and at the highest value, and then their duty was completed. The hon. and gallant Member had just now said that "poor unfortunate Mr. Mapleson "was not allowed to have his own architect and his own contractor. He must give the most direct and unqualified denial to every word of that statement. There was not a shadow of foundation for either of those statements. The facts were these—When Mr. Mapleson got the land, a certain number of architects thought proper to tender. Mr. Fowler sent in a tender under an "initial;" two plans were selected, one happened to be Mr. Fowler's and another that of Mr. Phipps—one being a member of the Board and the other a friend of his (Sir James Hogg's) own. Mr. Fowler did not know that he had been selected as architect till he read the announcement in The Times next morning at breakfast, the letter intimating the fact to him having been sent to his office. He (Sir James Hogg) had that statement from Mr. Fowler himself, and it would have been a great deal better if the hon. and gallant Member had informed himself a little more of the true facts before he came there and attacked an honourable body of gentlemen like the Metropolitan Board of Works.
COLONEL BERESFORDrose to Order. He must tell his hon. and gallant Friend that he did not make statements that were not true. His authority was that of Mr. Mapleson himself.
SIR JAMES HOGGsaid, he did not care who stated it. Whether it was Mr. Mapleson or anybody else, he gave it the most direct contradiction. There was not a shadow of truth in the statement. Then, as to Mr. Webster, the Metropolitan Board had no contractors. Their usual course was to issue specifications; tenders were sent in, and the lowest tender was always accepted if it were that of a fit and proper person. Mr. Webster had done several works for the Metropolitan Board remarkably well, but there was not a shadow of truth in the statement that he had been thrust down the throat of Mr. Mapleson. With reference to the Lord Chamberlain not giving a licence if there was not a roadway on either side of the theatre, he believed licences had been given very often

1937
where there were not roadways on both sides. And with reference to the advance, the Board thought they had made a very good bargain. Mr. Mapleson first offered two roads of 15 feet, but the Board required that they should be 20 feet wide. Looking at it with an unprejudiced eye, he thought the building would be much more handsome by being projected a certain distance on the roadway than if it were erected with its side to the Embankment. With regard to the measurement he had already given it to the hon. and gallant Gentleman on two previous occasions. He had the whole area measured twice over. The entire area was 62,467 square feet. The area of garden ground was 22,892 square feet, leaving building ground 39,575 square feet. In consideration of his being allowed to come beyond the line Mr. Mapleson had given up for two roadways of 20 feet wide, an area of 11,960 feet, and for approaches 2,175 feet, which made 14,135 feet surrendered. He acquired 12,139 feet by advancing the line of building, but he had surrendered 14,135 feet, leaving an area of 1,996 feet less than he had originally bargained for. But what did the House think was the amount of the encroachment? There were seven acres of pleasure ground on the Embankment for the public, and what had been taken was 2,644 feet, or about the sixteenth of an acre. He had now endeavoured to answer the accusations of his hon. and gallant Friend against the Metropolitan Board. His hon. and gallant Friend had said something about the Temple, but the Benchers had behaved very handsomely; they did not ask anything for compensation, but simply that the land should be given up to them with the understanding that no building should be put upon it, which, in fact, could not be allowed without the sanction of Parliament. He trusted the House would reject the Motion by a large majority, and thus show its approval of what had been done by the Board of Works.
MR. LOCKEsaid, that as a Member of the Committee, he believed the line beyond which new buildings should not be erected along the Thames Embankment had been infringed, and the simple question was whether the Metropolitan Board of Works had sanctioned the building of this theatre upon land which had been redeemed from the river? If
1938
that were so, it was entirely illegal for the Metropolitan Board of Works to have taken that course. Having regard to the line of frontage laid down by the Committee, it was obvious to him that the Opera House could not be legally erected on the proposed site unless an Act of Parliament were obtained, as in the case of the Temple. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works had been unfortunate in his allusion to what had taken place with respect to the Temple, for in that instance the Society, wishing to erect a line of houses at the bottom of Middle Temple Lane, found they could not do so without building on land reclaimed from the river. They did not act contrary to the law, but went to the Board of Works, and ascertained that they must obtain an Act of Parliament. That measure had now been passed, or was about to pass into law. He was sure the Government would do what was right in this matter, and would not support the Board of Works if that body had transgressed the law.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he had also been a Member of the Committee of 1871, and had taken part in the debate and the division which resulted in the Resolution of 1870, and all the reference to it in this debate was mere rubbish, as it had nothing to do with the site of the Opera House, but merely settled a controversy with reference to the plot of ground lying between the South Eastern Railway and the gardens of Whitehall Place. Everybody thought that the Metropolitan Board of Works had an equitable right to the use of the land which it had reclaimed, in order that it might dedicate it to the service of the public as a recreation ground; but the Government of the day being in a frugal mood, the Select Committee was appointed, the result being an equitable compromise, by which the land lately thrown open to the public as a garden was surrendered for a nominal rent to the Board. The question at present before the House was, originally, whether the use proposed to be made of this wholly different piece of ground was legal or illegal within the four corners of the Act of 1872. As the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) had not ventured to interpret the Act, it was fair to infer that it would not be of much use to him; but if anybody could

1939
prove that the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works had contravened the statute, the Courts of Law were open. For his own part, he did not look upon the House of Commons as either a Court of Error to review the Metropolitan Board, or as a standing audit or statutory critic with regard to it. At this time, however, the matter had ceased to he a question of right or wrong, and was removed into the category of artistic questions; and from that point of view there was no case. No one had fought more than he had for open spaces; but the bit of ground which was given up by permitting the advance of the line of buildings was hardly big enough for the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Boord) and the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark to play leap frog. It was separate from the other gardens, and was not worth making a garden of. The time to have raised the question of the line of frontage was before St. Stephen's Club was built. Next to it were lofty buildings which presented hideous back fronts to the Embankment, and, as it was fair to assume that the Opera House, which was to be erected by an architect of eminence, would have pretensions to architectural decoration, he trusted it would hide the unadorned backs, and so redeem the frontage to the Embankment. If there were to be any buildings at all in Bridge Street, their rear must be marked towards the river. An Opera House was a place of recreation for people who liked music, and he implored the House not to make itself absurd by going into a petty question like this, of which the particulars were not before it, which it did not fairly understand, and with which it was in no way concerned. He hoped the hon. and gallant Member would withdraw his Motion.
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, if this had been a question whether a large area of land which had been reclaimed at the cost of the ratepayers should be retained as an open space, he should have gone cordially and heartily with the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark; but it appeared to him that this was simply a question whether a sufficient payment had been made, or whether the arrangement between Mr. Mapleson and the Board was altogether satisfactory; and, if that was the question, this House was
1940
not the proper place to discuss it. Those who supported his Motion in 1871 would remember that the principle involved in it was, that it was not right that land which had been reclaimed from the river at the cost of the ratepayers should be appropriated by the Government of the day for Imperial purposes. In 1871 he contended that an open space which had been open from time immemorial, and which had been turned into dry land, should be converted into a place of re-creation for the metropolis, at whose expense it had been reclaimed. He was supported by a great majority on that occasion. That was quite a different case from the present one. In 1871 the Government of the day proposed to take that land away from the metropolis; but his hon. and gallant Friend now sought to place a constraint on the metropolis in regard to the use of a few feet of that land. He was heartily in favour of preserving open spaces, if possible, for the recreation of the population of London, which was rapidly increasing; but in that particular instance, if the Metropolitan Board of Works had exceeded their powers, the proper place for deciding the question was a Court of Law—a tribunal to which all the parties concerned could go. He regretted that his hon. and gallant Friend had thought it right to bring that subject before the House; because if such comparatively minute matters were raised there from time to time, they rather lessened the opportunity afforded to hon. Members who wished to bring forward more important questions.
COLONEL BERESFORDsaid, his complaint was not about the Opera House about to be built, but that the Board of Works permitted an advance of 75 feet into the roadway. However, after the statement of the hon. Gentleman he would, with the leave of the House, withdraw the Motion. ["No, no!"]
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

ENCLOSURE OF LANDS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GREGORY, in rising to call attention to the Reports of the En-

  1941
  closure Commissioners; and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the schemes of enclosure mentioned in such Reports should he proceeded with,"
  said, there was before Parliament a Bill for improving the supply of the food of the people, and the subject to which he now called attention had an intimate connection with that measure. The question really was whether we were to enclose the waste lands of the country? According to the Report of a Commission, there were something like 1,000,000 acres of land in this country fit for enclosure and cultivation. In 1845 an Act was passed constituting the Enclosure Commission, a body to whom all applications for enclosures were to be addressed, and who decided upon the conditions. The Commissioners, from that date down to the year 1869, exercised their functions with satisfaction to the public and credit to themselves. During that period they sanctioned enclosures to the extent of something like 620,000 acres, which had been brought into cultivation; but, on the other hand, within 20 years, owing to the growth of towns and the extension of railways and other public works, there had been a decrease in the productive area of the country of about 700,000 acres. But for the operation of the Act of 1845, the country would have been deprived of a food-producing area to the extent of the 620,000 acres to which he had referred. In 1869 the operations of the Commissioners received a sudden check. Exception was then taken to their Reports in regard to two particular commons; one in the county of Somerset, the other in the county of Surrey. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) had, no doubt, done good by preventing certain enclosures to which public attention had been called; but he had carried his objections to the in-closure of commons, in some instances, almost to a Quixotic length. Objection, however, was taken in the two cases to which he had alluded, that the Commissioners had not allotted sufficient space for the recreation of the public, or for the labouring poor of the district. The Act of 1845 provided that where the parish had a population of 10,000, the area allotted for recreation should be 10 acres, and so on down to four acres for a population of 2,000. It also gave the Commissioners a discretion as to the
  1942
  allotments to the labouring poor. Each case ought to depend on its own merits, and not be governed by a hard and fast rule. A Committee was appointed to consider the Reports of the Commissioners and their operations generally, and the consequence was, that the two enclosures to which he had adverted were specifically stopped, and certain others were allowed to go on. In 1871, a General Enclosure Bill was brought in, and an attempt was made to lay down certain rules and regulations under which enclosures should be made. It was referred to a Select Committee, and when it came out, it provided that allotments might be made for the poor to the extent of one-tenth of all commons enclosed. It also made provision as to places of recreation, but the Bill was not further proceeded with, and the matter remained in this unsatisfactory position to the present time. These unenclosed commons differed very much in character. Some were on mountainous land, and others on flat ground in the neighbourhood of towns. From the Report of the Commissioners, it appeared that there were ready no less than 34 schemes of enclosure, embracing 83,000 acres, and that many of these schemes had waited five or six years for the sanction of Parliament. The Commissioners stated, moreover, as he had before observed, that there was something like 1,000,000 of acres in this country, at present unused, which might be turned to profitable purposes of agriculture. It seemed they were now discouraging applications for enclosure—and well they might, considering the discouragement which had been received from Parliament. He did not say that these schemes ought to be approved. All that he asked was that each of the 34 schemes should be considered individually, and that they should not lay down a hard-and-fast line that there should be no more enclosures. Let there be allotments for the labouring poor, and also for recreation; and he was quite sure that the lords of the manor were anxious that there should be reasonable provision in that way. He must say that he was astonished when Gentlemen who professed to be social reformers set themselves against further enclosures of commons, which might be made available for the production of food for the people. Take one case in point, which was reported upon by the

  1943
  Commissioners—namely, that of Rinell, in the fertile vale of York—where there was a common of 1,200 acres that might be beneficially enclosed for the production of food. He remembered that Swaffham Heath, a number of years ago, was a coursing ground, and that he had shot over it. He saw it lately covered with corn; so that a tract of waste ground, that was thronged with hares and rabbits, was now converted into fruitful fields. In conclusion, the hon. Member expressed a hope that Government would next Session propose some scheme which would have the effect of giving to the population the benefit of some portion of the 1,000,000 acres which were now lying waste. He begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  MR. SPEAKERtold the hon. Gentleman that, by the Forms of the House, his Amendment could not put.
  MR. WALSHregretted that the Committee which sat in 1869 had their inquiries limited to only one portion of the subject—that was, the quantity of enclosed land which had been given to the labouring poor. He had long been of opinion that a full inquiry into the operation of the Enclosure Act of 1846 would be most useful. The commoners had more interest in this matter than even the lords of the manors. There was no doubt there were two different sorts of enclosures—one of which was suburban, and the other consisting of large tracts of land in the North of England and in South Wales. He believed that in that part of the country which he represented (Radnorshire), the commoners were to a man in favour of enclosure. Indeed, the general feeling in South Wales was favourable to the enclosure of these extensive waste lands. Much local crime resulted from them. They encouraged sheep stealing, from the difficulty of tracing the offenders; and the disputes to which they gave rise led to bad feeling, and caused many aggravated assaults. As the waste lands had become enclosed, crime had greatly diminished. There were no people so much interested in these enclosures as the small freeholder. He had rights in common with the large farmers, but the law of the strongest prevailed, and he was at their mercy. The large farmers kept three or four "fighting shepherds," who drove off the sheep of the small
  1944
  freeholders. Diseases among sheep also were often spread in consequence of the sheep of so many different persons being turned out upon one large common. At the last General Election he owed his seat to the interest taken in this subject more than to anything else, for the small freeholders voted for him against the late Government, who had stopped these enclosures. Although, by the Forms of the House, the Amendment could not be put, he trusted that the Home Secretary would hold out the hope that the Government would early next Session deal with a subject of such great importance.
  MR. SANDFORDsaid, that the Select Committee of 1869 made many important recommendations, the last but not least of which was that further enclosures should be suspended until the Act had been passed to give effect to their views. They also pointed out that Enclosure Bills required the constant attention of the House. It appeared that out of 368,000 acres of land enclosed only 2,223 acres had been allotted to the poor, and not more than 1,742 for recreation grounds; so that enclosures had not greatly ameliorated the condition or promoted the comfort of the poor. There were reasons why the principle of the Enclosure Act should now be re-considered for the present circumstances were very different. In 1845 the protective system existed, and the Legislature believed that it was for the public interest to promote the enclosure of land for the food supply of the people. We now drew upon other countries for our supplies, and the health and recreation of the public might receive a large amount of consideration.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that, in considering the question of enclosures there were two opposite interests which required to be dealt with with the greatest delicacy, these were the interests of the public and the interests of proprietors, and no doubt a great deal of land had been enclosed by which the public had benefited, while much had been enclosed without proper consideration for the interests of the public, as opposed to those who claimed to have proprietary rights. The Select Committee of 1868 found that the public interests had not been fully considered, and upon the whole he thought that they were amply justified in recommending that further enclosures should not

  1945
  be carried on until the whole system of enclosure law had been re-considered, and some broad line had been laid down upon which enclosures should be effected. The outcome of the feeling which prevailed upon the subject was that Committees had recommended that it was desirable no further enclosure should be sanctioned until the general law had been fully considered. He hoped his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would give the House an assurance that an opportunity would be afforded them of fully considering that general law. The question was one of enormous interest to the public, and if Her Majesty's Government undertook to deal with it they would, he believed, receive support at both sides of the House. At the hands of his right hon. Friend he had no doubt the subject would be dealt with in a large and comprehensive manner; and if his right hon. Friend applied to the question that broadness of principle which had been brought to bear upon other questions, he was certain that when a General Enclosure Bill was brought forward the House would have reason to be satisfied with the measure.
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOTsaid, he was surprised at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sandwich, when he recalled that although that right hon. Gentleman, when Under Secretary for the Home Department, had had ample opportunity of carrying out the recommendations of the Select Committee, he had, nevertheless, failed to do so, from not having, as he (Sir Walter Barttelot) thought the courage of his opinions. [Mr. KNATCH-BULL-HUGESSEN: No. Yes. The right hon. Gentleman, in the nature of his office, must necessarily have had the Enclosure Bills brought before him. He believed the right hon. Gentleman had considered the subject, and had not arrived at a just or right conclusion with respect to it. At any rate, the Government of which he was a Member had an opportunity of dealing with the question, and had signally failed to do so. They were, in fact, afraid to undertake the task, because of the opposition of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), then Member for Brighton. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), who succeeded the right hon. Gentleman at the Home Office, also
  1946
  feared to grapple with it. What were the facts? The Committee to which reference had been made, as a fair compromise, recommended that, in most cases, one-tenth of the enclosed land should, on the whole, be the proportion reserved for the poor—a large and liberal allowance, in his opinion. Why, then, was not a Bill brought in by the late Government? The reason was because great opposition to the measure came from below the Gangway, and up to the present moment nothing had been done, though the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) was of opinion, at the time, that the Report of the Committee was a very fair and satisfactory one. There was the framework for a satisfactory measure, and he commended it to the consideration of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had spoken of a right which he said the public had in these enclosures, but he had not told the House what that right was. The right hon. Gentleman was a large owner of property, and he (Sir Walter Barttelot) wished that he would get up and explain what right the public had in these enclosures. He did not deny that there was a moral obligation on the part of the owners to do something in favour of the public, and he, for one, was prepared to fulfil that obligation; but he wished to have the right of the public in these waste lands more clearly defined, and that was a matter which, as he had said, the right hon. Gentleman had never taken the trouble to explain. What he wished to point out was, that where the authorities of large towns were anxious to obtain possession of these unenclosed lands, they might have them by paying a fair and moderate price for them, and the whole difficulty would then be got rid of. [Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: Pay whom?] Why, pay those to whom the land belonged—the lord of the manor and the commoners, without whose assent the enclosure could not be made, and who, he was sure, would make a considerable sacrifice in favour of the public. He was quite ready to admit that there was a great difference between the case of commons in the neighbourhood of the great circles of industry and the case of those which lay in the open country; but still, if there was a

  1947
  piece of vacant land in any of those towns, the property of the corporation or of an individual, they, or he, got the best price they could for it as building ground, and he did not see why they should not be made to pay for those rights which they wished to obtain over open and unenclosed lands beyond the borough boundary. Then there was ample protection in the fact that two-thirds of the commoners, with the lord of the manor, must give their assent before land could be enclosed. With respect to commons not situated near large towns, the right hon. Gentleman would not say that such commons ought not to be enclosed. [Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGES-SEN observed that he had said that in certain localities they ought to be enclosed.] All he advocated was the system recommended by the Committee, and on which the Bill was founded. There were many enclosures which would be of great advantage to different towns, and it was an unfair thing, where they would be of advantage to a district, to say they should not be enclosed. In many cases it would be for the interest of towns, and of all parties concerned, that the arrangements which had been recommended, and for which provisional orders had been granted, should be carried out.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that in the Committee to which reference had been made, very little assistance was received from the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Walter Barttelot), and it was owing to him and some other hon. Members who acted with him, that the proceedings were delayed so long that the Bill could not be proceeded with. In the following Session the same Bill was introduced by Lord Kimberley in the other House, and rejected on the third reading by the Conservative Party. The hon. and gallant Baronet, therefore, was not justified in saying that the late Government had not courage to carry out their own views, and signally failed in carrying their Bill. The hon. and gallant Baronet had spoken of that Bill as a very fair one. He was glad to hear him say so, but it was certainly the first time that he had done so. It proposed to deal differently with commons in the neighbourhood of large towns and those in rural districts. It was intended that the Metropolitan Commons Act should be extended to the case of
  1948
  other commons in the neighbourhood of large towns, and provision was made for the maintenance of such commons and the prevention of nuisances; and it was framed upon the idea that enclosure should not take place without the assent of Parliament. With regard to rural districts, where commons should in future be enclosed, it was proposed that a very much larger proportion should in future be devoted to recreative grounds and garden allotments. Many commons had been enclosed where enclosure was not justified, on the ground of benefit or convenience to the poorer classes, or in the interest of agriculture, but simply for the purpose of adding to gentlemen's parks and preserves, and therefore the Committee held that every case of enclosure ought to be inquired into by a Parliamentary Committee, even after it had been approved of by the Enclosure Commissioners. The only question now before the House was, whether they should recommend the Government that the schemes presented by the Enclosure Commissioners should be at once confirmed without waiting for a General Enclosure Act. He thought it would be unwise on the part of the Government to take any such step. Their wisest course would be to bring in a Bill to amend that Act, and if it was founded on a sound policy, he had no doubt it would meet with the approval of the House. He thought the hon. Member for East Sussex had exaggerated the amount of land which could be advantageously dealt with under a General Enclosure Bill, and that it did not amount to 1,000,000 acres.
  MR. GREGORYexplained that the Commissioners in their Report stated that more than 1,000,000 of acres were available.
  MR. PELLsaid, that the most startling and incorrect statements were made with regard to the commons. These enclosures were facilitated and encouraged not by the great landowners, but by small common-holders. The public, in the sense in which it was used by hon. Gentlemen opposite, had very little right upon these commons. They had a right of crossing them, and in the case of commons near large towns, they might have acquired rights through small commoners not being able to maintain their rights. In such cases compensation ought to be paid to the small commoners.

  1949
  Nothing could be more unjust than to deprive owners, large or small, of their interest in commons out of consideration for assumed rights of the public.
  MR. KINNAIRDreferred to the late decision of the Master of the Bolls with reference to Epping Forest, as a proof that many large landowners were disposed to make unjust enclosures of commons. Every large town ought to have secured a good piece of common land for the use of its inhabitants, and in every city there ought to be a watchman to give warning of encroachments such as these which the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex and his Friends seemed desirous of having the power to make.
  LORD HENRY SCOTTsaid, he should not like to see every acre of land enclosed, whether for the purpose of adding to already large estates or with a view to cultivation. Due regard ought to be paid to the agricultural poor in the neighbourhood of commons, and enclosures should be jealously watched so that the interests of these poor people should be protected. If there was anything that added to the beauty of a country, it was the commons; and the commons of England were amongst its greatest ornaments.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the House would not accuse him of any want of disrespect if he declined to connect him-self or the Government to any particular course of action with regard to this matter. He was bound, however, to say that the Government were quite prepared to accept the legacy left them by their predecessors. For the purpose of testing the view of the House, he had advised the Government that a measure should be introduced, treating simply of matters to which there was no objection; but when he found that the feeling of the House was that the question should be dealt with in a more comprehensive spirit, he did not think it right to press the Bill. He hoped, however, before long to introduce a Bill which would in most respects carry out the views of the Enclosure Commissioners. He regretted that the Government had not been able this year to take up the matter. It was very pressing, and had engaged a large share of his attention, but, as he had said, be hoped before very long to remedy the evil. But the question was one which, when it came to be dealt
  1950
  with, would have to be dealt with upon broad principles. There was not the slightest doubt that enclosures would go on, if anyone chose to enclose. There was no reason why commoners and lords of the manor should not introduce Bills to enclose their commons if they saw fit to do so. The only effect which the existence of the Enclosure Commissioners had was to provide machinery by which the enclosures could be made at a cheaper rate. The law of the case was this—It was able to protect everyone in the possession of his own rights, whatever they were. Well, so long as people were content with their own rights the law would not interfere; but it was only when they claimed something else that Parliament had the right to interfere, and impose its own conditions. As to the food question, there were, no doubt, waste lands capable of producing more than they did at present, and legislation might effect something in this respect. The reports of the Enclosure Commissioners did not always afford ground for a satisfactory conclusion, and he thought it was a great hardship that the Minister who happened to be in office at the time should be compelled, simply on the recommendation of the Enclosure Commissioners, to take up Bills and push them through Parliament. He thought the Minister ought to be allowed to exercise his own judgment, and ought not to be dependent upon the ipse dixit of the Commissioners as to what was or was not for the interests of the public. The result of all the schemes passed since 1869 was as yet very small, and he cordially agreed with hon. Members that it was a matter which ought to be dealt with, and he would do so at the earliest possible moment.
  MR. FAWCETTconsidered the statement of the Home Secretary a most satisfactory one, and he hoped he would next year be able to introduce a comprehensive Bill. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman practically recognized the changed position of the country since the passing of the Enclosure Act in 1843, the importance of preserving open spaces for the health of our rapidly-increasing population, and the duty of placing obstacles in the way of enclosure and making those who demanded it prove their case. The information hitherto afforded by the Commissioners was insufficient to enable the

  1951
  Government and the House to form a judgment upon any particular case; but that was due to the strictly administrative character of the functions assigned to the Commissioners. The Home Secretary had invited lords of manors to enclose by means of private Bills; but the enclosures that were made by private Bills before 1843 were not carried out in such a way as to warrant a recurrence to that practice. He remembered a case in which it was proposed to enclose a common of 1,960 acres, and the Commissioners thought two acres of allotments and one acre of recreation ground sufficiently represented the rights of the public and the interests of the poor. He might quote numberless cases of the same kind. The last attempt to effect an enclosure by a private bill reached its third reading, but was then rejected, and in that it was proposed to enclose 6,900 acres, and out of that quantity of land only to allow five acres as recreation ground, and one acre as allotment gardens. The late Duke of Newcastle once said that 1,000,000 acres of common land had been enclosed before the Enclosure Act of 1843, and after a searching inquiry he had arrived at the conclusion that, without a single exception, no enclosure had taken place without great injury to the public, and that the interests of the poor were systematically ignored. Whether enclosures were attempted to be carried out by private or by public Acts, he believed the general feeling of the House to be that the principle laid down by a Select Committee would equally apply, namely—That it was inexpedient to sanction any further enclosures until the Enclosure Act had been amended. However powerful a Government might be, it would find it difficult to pass an Enclosure Act through the House unless it recognized the right of the public in the matter. There was a strong feeling throughout the country amongst men of every political party that these open spaces should be preserved.
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, he deprecated statements and discussions which were calculated to suggest the idea that large tracts of land were likely to be obtained for profitable cultivation by enclosures of wastes and commons. He had also to complain of the exaggerated statements frequently put forward with respect to enclosure schemes on the one
  1952
  side or the other, and in which they were held up as a great hardship upon the poor. One thing was certain that the persons who were desirous to have those waste lands enclosed would give any amount of land necessary for garden and recreation grounds for the poor.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSwished to explain that he did not use the expression attributed to him by the hon. Member for Hackney, that he would early next Session bring in a Bill upon the subject. What he had said was, that it was a matter pressing for consideration, and that it should receive it.

METROPOLITAN POLICE CELLS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERcalled attention to the system of primary detention in the Metropolitan Police District, to the condition of the police cells, and the cells attached to the Courts of the stipendiary magistrates. Great alteration had been made of late years, he observed, in the condition of the convicted prisoners, but there had been no amelioration of the condition of those who were still assumed to be innocent. In 1873 73,857 persons were apprehended by the police in the London district, showing the necessity for considering the state and condition of the cells in which persons were often confined from 16 to 36 hours before the charges against them could be heard and dispossd of. The cells, as a rule, were very well kept and ventilated, but he thought the drunkards' cell could be improved by putting a ledge on which to rest the head, instead of having to he with the head on the floor, and he suggested that their number should be increased. The question of bail also was one that required consideration with a view to its enlargement. He was glad to find that assaults had greatly diminished which the Inspectors of police attributed to drunkenness from drinking the deleterious compounds that were formerly sold for spirits. Since the power of analyzation under the Licensing Act, from the sale of purer articles, these offences had very much diminished. He suggested that at Bow Street, where the cells were numerous, and not used, one should be fitted up as a medical cell, for the use of the medical

  1953
  officer. The cells connected with the police courts were very small and insufficient in number, and prisoners of all grades and ages were crowded into them until their cases came to be heard. There was another question as regarded the police which merited serious consideration. For a body of men numbering 10,000 it seemed to him that a Commissioner and two assistant Commissioners were quite inadequate. An army of 10,000 men in battalions of 1,000 would have at least 300 regimental officers, besides an efficient staff. Of late years there had been an appalling amount of undetected crime, and he maintained that in the police there ought to be a larger number of educated men of high character and position, and if that were the case there would be a vast difference in the amount of undetected crime.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONthought that a great deal of obloquy had been thrown upon a large body of painstaking public servants. In 1873 a Committee of the Social Science Association went round the police cells of London and made a report upon them, in which they said that they did not require material alteration. Since that time considerable improvement had taken place in those cells. In June of this year some gentlemen connected with The Lancet visited the police cells in the metropolis and reported even more strongly in favour of the condition in which they found them. When the hon. and gallant Baronet gave Notice of his Question, he made a point himself of visiting these cells without any previous notice to the police authorities, and he could state that the praise given to them by the hon. and gallant Baronet was fully deserved. With regard to the police courts, he could not go so far as he did in saying that a large number of them were not sufficiently supplied with cells, because in the beginning of this year the Secretary of State ordered an inquiry to be made upon them by Dr. Bristowe, and he reported that, whilst with respect to three of them—Westminster, Bow Street, and Clerkenwell—much improvement was needed, the other 10 were sufficient for the number of prisoners confined in them.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONresumed: He could find no ground for just complaint. The rules laid down were implicitly adhered to, and formed a sufficient safeguard against abuse. In case of necessity medical advice was always taken. If the hon. and gallant Baronet could point out any serious grievance connected with the detention of prisoners, he might rely that it would have the immediate consideration of the Home Office.

DOMINION OF CANADA—PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.—THE LAND PURCHASE ACT, 1875.—OBSERVATIONS.
SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERY, in rising to call the attention of the House to "The Land Purchase Act, 1875," of the Local Government of Prince Edward's Island; and to move an Address for Copy or Extracts of Correspondence between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Lieutenant Governor of Prince Edward's Islandand the Governor General of Canada, relating to the land question in that island, since the 25th day of July 1864, said: I am sorry at so late an hour to trouble the House with this matter relating to Prince Edward's Island; but the Land Purchase Act of that colony is of so extraordinary a character, I think it should not be passed over without being noticed in Parliament. By the terms of this Act, every proprietor owning more than 40 acres of land, is compelled to sell his property by arbitration to the Island Government. There is no option given, and every owner of town-ship lands, when notified so to do, must proceed to have his interest in land valued. This may not be thought a great hardship to those proprietors who are absentees; but many proprietors live upon their estates, do a great deal for them, and their case is one of great hardship indeed. The object of this remarkable measure is, of course, that the tenantry may, by purchase from the Government, become owners of the freehold of their farms. I apprehend there are tenants in an island nearer home than Prince Edward's Island who would not object to similar legislation in their case, and would like well enough to purchase out by compulsion their landlords, and I cannot but feel that this Act is setting a most dangerous prece-

1955
dent, and therefore I have felt it my duty to call the attention of the House to its provisions. In my opinion, there was no occasion for this compulsion. By Returns laid before this House, I find that from 1861 to 1871 the Government of Prince Edward's Island has spent £106,144 in purchasing the estates of proprietors, and I believe there are now only about 400,000 acres of land in the Island still unsold to the Government. It is my confident belief the Government would, in the course of a few years, have got possession of all this land, and that this extraordinary legislation is quite uncalled-for. The Preamble of the Act recites that the Government of Prince Edward's Island is to receive $800,000 from the Dominion of Canada under the terms on which the Island became confederated, for the purpose of buying up the township lands of the proprietors, and re-selling them to the tenantry, and three Commissioners are to be appointed—one by the Island Government, one by the proprietors, and one by the Governor General of Canada—and here let me say with how much satisfaction the proprietors have seen that the Governor General of Canada has made choice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ponte-fract as the Commissioner to represent him. The proprietors will feel that their interests are safer in his hands, and had things rested here—and it was understood these Commissioners were merely to assess the market value of the proprietors' lands—I should not have eared so much, but the numerous matters to be taken into consideration by the Commissioners in estimating the compensation to be paid are most extraordinary, and I do hope to hear from my hon. Friend the Under Secretary that, in the opinion of the Colonial Secretary, the Commissioners are not bound to give more effect to these con-
1956
ditions than they think just. At this late hour, I will not go into the documentary history of this land question, or allude to the Royal Commission of 1860, that investigated this matter—I will merely say that, in times past, the Colonial Office stood nobly by the proprietors in their defence of their rights, and that it is a matter of great surprise to me that the Governor General of Canada should have thought fit to assent to an Act clogged with such absurd recommendations as a guidance to the Commissioners. I hope my hon. Friend will give the Papers I ask for.
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought his hon. Friend was fully justified in bringing the question before the House, and the Correspondence he asked for would be produced. He might, how-aver, remind him that the Colonial Office gave up its power of allowing or disallowing Acts of the Assembly of Prince Edward's Island, when, it became a portion of the Dominion of Canada, and that power was transferred to the Governor General in Council. He admitted the extraordinary character of the Act, which would stagger those who read it for the first time. But the circumstances were peculiar. There were occupiers, having long leases, who objected to pay rent, a state of affairs which, he was afraid, was not confined to Prince Edward's Island. A still more objectionable Act was passed last year, but the Governor General disallowed it, in the adoption of which course he had the full support of the Secretary of State; and a more reasonable Bill had been introduced this year.
Notice taken that 40 Members were not present. House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Department of Science and Art * (221); Conspiracy and Protection of Property * (220); Turnpike Acts Continuance * (222); Foreign Jurisdiction * (224).
Second Reading—Entail Amendment (Scotland) * (214); Washington Treaty (Claims Distribution)* (216).
Committee—Pharmacy * (209–223).
Third Reading—Police Constables (Scotland) * (199); Police (Expenses) * (207); Copyright of Designs * (211), and passed.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE SESSION.—QUESTION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I wish to put a Question to the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond), of which I gave Notice yesterday, respecting the course of Public Business. I do not put the Question in any way of complaint; but I put it in order to get information—which is not always the object of Parliamentary Questions. I may say that with one exception—to which I do not now intend to allude—I do not think your Lordships' House has any cause to complain of the conduct of Business this Session by the noble Duke. Her Majesty's Government brought in many important Bills at the beginning of the Session, and they received more than average attention at that period of the Session. As regards the future, your Lordships are aware that for seve-

  1869
  ral years it was urged that it was the duty of your Lordships' House to consider all important measures even at a late period of the Session. I find that my Question is not quite so urgent as it was yesterday, for I find the Prime Minister has modified his declaration that all Government Bills were to pass this Session. My noble Friend opposite will remember that in a speech which he delivered in another place, and which showed remarkable power and produced a very great effect, he drew a comparison of the legislative action of the present Government with that of the late Government, and stated that all the Government Bills would pass—or certainly all that were important. I think my noble Friend alluded particularly to the Merchant Shipping Bill, which I hear has now been abandoned. Fearing that the House might be left in ignorance of the subjects to be brought before it, I should very much like to know, Whether my noble Friend can give the House any information as to what Bills are likely to be brought before us during the remainder of the Session and at what time?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: With regard to the principle my noble Friend has laid down of discussing measures at a late period of the Session, I imagine your Lordships will be perfectly prepared to receive and discuss any Bills which may be sent up for our consideration by the other House of Parliament. I wish to refer to one part of my noble Friend's remarks in which he stated that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had announced his intention to carry all the Bills which the Government had introduced. I think my noble Friend has misapprehended what was stated by the Prime Minister on the occasion to which he alludes. If I mistake not, the Prime Minister was referring only to Bills which had then passed the second reading—that is my impression of what he intended to convey. With regard to the measures which Her Majesty's Government are preparing to bring forward, and also with reference to the speech which my noble Friend has done me the honour to allude to which I made in another place, I may say that if I had to speak again tomorrow I should be quite prepared to make the same speech as I delivered on that occasion—with the exception, of
  1870
  course, of one Bill which has since that time been abandoned by the Government, because they felt it would be impossible to discuss it sufficiently this Session—I mean the Merchant Shipping Bill. With regard to the Business before your Lordships, my noble Friend will see that a Bill of some importance stands for second reading this evening—namely, the Scotch Entail Bill. Then there is the Pharmacy Bill, which will be considered in Committee this evening. The Police Constables (Scotland) Bill, the Police Expenses Bill, and the Copyright of Designs Bill stand for third reading, and the Washington Treaty (Claims Distribution) Bill is down for second reading. There are two very important Bills which have been read a third time in the other House of Parliament. One has been read a first time in this House, the Employers and Workmen Bill; and the Conspiracy Bill, which goes with that, was, I think, read a third time last night—though whether it has been sent up to this House I am not aware. It is, however, the intention of my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack to move the second reading of both these Bills at the same time, and he had intended to ask your Lord-ships to discuss them on Thursday next; but we have been informed that it would be more convenient to noble Lords on the other side of the House that these Bills should be taken at an earlier period, and therefore he proposes to move the second reading of the Employers and Workmen Bill and the Conspiracy Bill on Monday next, with the hope that it will be convenient to go into Committee on both Bills on Tuesday or Thursday in next week, if that should suit the convenience of the House. I do not know of any other measures with which Her Majesty's Government have to deal in this House to which I need further allude. I do not know whether this will be regarded by my noble Friend as a satisfactory answer; but if he wishes for further details and will indicate in what direction his views are, I shall be most happy to give the subject my best attention.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Does Her Majesty's Government intend to pass all their Bills with the exception of the Merchant Shipping Bill, which they have announced it to be their intention to abandon?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: I believe that if my noble Friend will at the end of the Session refer to the Bills passed in the Sessions of 1874 and 1875, he will, with his usual candour, admit that they are equal, if not greater, in importance than the Bills passed in 1872 and 1873 by the Government of which he was so distinguished a Member. We need not go into such a comparison now; but Her Majesty's Government will this year have passed a number of most important measures. No doubt, the Merchant Shipping Bill has been withdrawn; but at this moment I cannot call to mind any other Bill of an important character which has been or is likely to be abandoned.

AGRICULTURAL CHILDREN ACT.

  ADDRESS FOR COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE.
  EARL DE LA WARR, on rising to move an Address for Papers relative to the operation of the Agricultural Children Act, said, that that statute was passed in 1873, its object being as stated to regulate the employment of children in agriculture. At the commencement of the present year the Act came nominally into operation: since that time, however, it appeared to have become almost inoperative, partly from the want of machinery to put it in force, and partly from the fact that there was no very general feeling in the country that such an Act was required. Agricultural schools were everywhere increasing in number and efficiency, and it was becoming the exception in agricultural districts to find a child who was not receiving a fair amount of elementary instruction. That would, perhaps, in some measure explain why the Act had hitherto been almost a dead letter. But there was, he believed, another reason. A strong feeling existed against legislative interference to such an extent as was authorized by this Act with the private and domestic arrangements of families—especially when it was applied to a single class. It was the agricultural labourer only who was subjected to the penalties of the Act; while another class—the small occupiers of land, who were not much removed from the labouring class, might employ their own children of any age in the cultivation of their own land without incurring the penalties of the Act. It had recently been stated,
  1872
  by one of the London journals, that Justices of Quarter Sessions, acting in accordance with instructions from Her Majesty's Government, had directed the police to enforce the provisions of that Act. Now, if that were the course which Her Majesty's Government proposed to sanction with regard to the enforcing of that Act, it was open to very grave objections. The penalties of the Act were aimed at one class only; but he much doubted whether their Lordships would be prepared to say that a police constable should have the power of entering the house of anyone to ascertain how his children were being educated for the purpose of bringing him, if necessary, before a Bench of Magistrates. It was a power which was not granted to the police except in the case of suspected criminals, and he could not see why the agricultural labourer should be made an exception to other classes and subjected to this interference with the privacy of his family. If the Act was to be enforced—which he could not but regard as objectionable in principle, and inconvenient in practice as interfering with agricultural labour—it should be done, he ventured to suggest, in some other way than through the county police; and he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would give some assurance that would allay the apprehensions which were felt with regard to the future operation of this Act.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copy of Correspondence between the Home Office and Justices of Quarter Sessions relative to the operation of the Agricultural Children Act; also for copies of Instructions issued to the Police of different counties with regard to enforcing the said Act."
  Address agreed to.

ARMY—COMPETITIVE EXAMINATIONS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYasked the Under Secretary for War, Whether it is intended to make success in a competitive examination, among other English works, in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, a necessary introduction to the military service of Her Majesty as Cavalry and Infantry officers; and whether the provisions for such examination are under the sanction of the Commander-in-Chief or the Secretary for War? As

  1873
  we all knew, competition prevailed in almost every branch of public life except the highest—we had not yet come to the period when Ministers of State were appointed because of the number of "marks" achieved by them or when they were complimented by the House of Commons because of the success which they had gained in their examination—that was a point which we had not yet reached. But meanwhile he thought their Lordships would agree that it was only proper that in those cases in which examinations prevailed those examinations should be conducted with a view to the objects to be obtained by them. He quite agreed that military students should be examined as to their general knowledge of English literature and the English language; but even in Prussia and France, where these matters were carried to extremes, he was not aware that Prussian military students were subject to examination in the ancient German language, or that young French officers were examined as to their proficiency in ancient French literature. He put this Question because on looking over the list of subjects for examination on entrance into the Army he found that Chaucer was one of the authors with whose writings candidates were required to be acquainted. He should have thought that an acquaintance with the Chronicles of Froissart would have been more consonant with a military education; but however that might be, he felt sure that their Lordships would agree with him that the compulsory study of Chaucer savoured more of the pedantry of the Professor than the wise conclusion of the practical man. He was aware that neither English literature nor Chaucer was in terms compulsory; but rivalry in competition practically made it so. He wanted to know whether this scheme of examination was proposed by the Civil Service Examiners; and, if so, whether it had received the sanction of the military authorities? If the former was the case, it seemed strange to him that the Examiners should have been allowed to frame such a scheme; and if the latter, he would think it still more strange that so important a part of the education of young officers for the Army should have received the sanction of the authorities who were responsible for the efficiency of officers admitted to the service.
  EARL CADOGANsaid, the question of the noble Earl was based upon two erroneous assumptions, the first of which was that candidates for admission to the Army were bound to pass an examination in English Literature, and the second that Chaucer was always included among the authors presented for examination. Neither of these assumptions was correct. The fact was that English Literature was one of nine subjects from which the candidates might select four, and that Chaucer was only incidentally included among the authors in reference to whose works students might be examined. No student, however, who took up the subject of English Literature was bound to study any particular one of the authors named. In reply to his noble Friend's Question he had to say that the subjects for examination were chosen by the Civil Service Commissioners and then submitted for publication to the Director General of Military Education. The Secretary of State for War had power of veto in case he did not approve the curriculum chosen by the Commissioners. He was not, however, aware that upon any occasion the authorities at the War Office had altered or dissented from the selection that had been made by the Civil Service Commissioners.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, he had paid particular attention to these examinations, and had observed that, as a rule, the subjects had been well selected and the results satisfactory; but he had been surprised to observe that one passage of Chaucer, in which there was a very fine military description, had been omitted from the selections for examination.
  EARL STANHOPEthought the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby) had done good service by raising this question. He conceived very few authors were less suited to advance military education than Chaucer. In order to understand Chaucer it was necessary to pass through a preliminary study of old English and to acquire a knowledge of a vast number of archaic words which had long passed out of general use and were only preserved by the laborious students of early English literature. If these words were introduced into modern speech the person using them would be exposed to ridicule. He viewed with great regret the introduction of such authors into a system of military examination; and,

  1875
  further, he would go the length of stating his opinion that if the person devising such a course had desired to bring into contempt the whole system of military examinations he could hardly have hit upon a better method. He was therefore sorry to find the noble Earl the Under Secretary of State for War opposing the view of the noble Earl who had brought the question forward, and stating that the subjects for examination were submitted to and approved by the Secretary of State for War.
  EARL CADOGAN, in explanation, said, the subjects for examination were selected by the Civil Service Commissioners, but they were forwarded to the Director General of Military Education for publication, and they were subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEsaid, he understood that the Civil Service Commissioners, having chosen the subjects for examination, handed them to the Director General of Military Education, not for supervision, but merely that he might transmit them to the Secretary of State.
  EARL STANHOPEthought the system referred to by the illustrious Duke ought not to remain in force; but that a plan more suited to the future career of candidates for the profession of arms ought to be adopted.
  VISCOUNT CARDWELLsaid, it seemed to be assumed that the object in view in these examinations was military education; but the fact was that that was not the purpose immediately in view. Some years ago the state of general education in the Army was so unsatisfactory that a Royal Commission was appointed with a view to its improvement, and their recommendation was that officers should entered the Army at an early age with a good English education. There was one object which the Commissioners had particularly in view. They noticed that a very small portion of young man who enter the Army were drawn from public schools; but they learnt from commanding officers that the best officers were those who had been drawn from our public schools, and, therefore, they said in effect—"Let us have a system by which we may secure for the Army youths with the best civil education which the country affords, and let us give them, afterwards, the best mili-
  1876
  tary education which we can provide." It was in strict conformity with the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners that the Civil Service Commissioners had endeavoured to proceed. It was in deference to the opinion of the Royal Commissioners that the examinations were given over to the Civil Service Commissioners. While the present system had been in operation the War Office, he believed, had never interfered with the choice of the Civil Service Commissioners; and the Civil Service Commissioners, on their part, had scrupulously endeavoured to ascertain and act in accordance with the wishes of the illustrious Duke (the Duke of Cambridge) and the Secretary of State for War. The question, therefore, was not whether the study of Chaucer or any other author formed a desirable part of a military education—for the military education was to come afterwards—but whether it ought to enter into the education of an English gentleman. In this matter the object of the Civil Service Commissioners, as of the Royal Commissioners, had been, not to tell the managers of public schools what they ought to teach, but to follow the course of study they had adopted, as the one calculated to make the best officers for the Army. He confessed he had been much surprised in the course of the discussion to hear men of the greatest literary attainments speak of Chaucer as if he were not a proper subject for study. Chaucer was pronounced by Hallam to be "the greatest poet of the Middle Ages beyond comparison," and he should have thought that, in trying to find out the best pupils of the English public schools, it was not an unnatural thing to select Chaucer's works as a subject of examination.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEalso desired to point out that the examinations in question were not military examinations, but were designed solely with the view of securing officers of good general education for the Army. They were, in fact, public school examinations, and were intended to get young men from the public schools to enter the Service. The Civil Service Commissioners had been intrusted with these examinations, and, so far as he was aware, the authorities of the War Office, whether civil or military, had in no way interfered in the matter. The question

  1877
  which had been raised was therefore one for the Civil Service Commissioners alone to deal with. It was not until the young men had passed the examination in question that it became the duty of the authorities at the War Office to deal with their military education.
  LORD HAMPTONwas understood to express his entire concurrence with the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby), and to say that, in his opinion, the present system of examination for introduction to the Army was very far from satisfactory.
  EARL GREYthought the most crying evil of the present system of competitive examination was that it fostered "cramming." That being so, to fix upon Chaucer as a subject by an acquaintance with which a good many marks might be obtained by young men, appeared to him to be a course the tendency of which would be to increase that evil.
  After a few words from Earl FORTESCUE,
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that not one word of English was taught at the public school at which he was. Whether that was a creditable state of things he did not know; but there was now a modern side to most public schools, and he should be very much surprised if in any course of English literature the study of Chaucer should be entirely omitted. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Cadogan), who spoke with great authority on such a subject, said it would be a disadvantage for a young man to study Chaucer, inasmuch as it might introduce the use of obsolete words into his ordinary conversation; but that argument would, in his opinion, apply equally to the study of Latin.
  LORD LAWRENCEwas understood to say it was most desirable that young men should receive a good general education, for by that means they acquired a knowledge of a great variety of subjects.

FIRST COMMISSIONS IN THE ARMY.

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD STRATHNAIRN: My Lords, I feel persuaded that I do not misrepresent your sentiments when I say that the system of education which qualifies candidates for first appointments—that is, to command your soldiers, especially to lead them in war—is a State interest of vital—the greatest—importance; and
  1878
  I am equally certain that your Lordships will consider entitled to discussion and inquiry the general and serious complaints that the present educational system—of which competition is a principal feature—is based on great anomalies and erroneous principles, which endanger the efficient officering of the Army; because, my Lords, that system is a course of wholly civil and literary instruction—a preparation for civil and literary, not military distinction, or a military career—competition awarding the military prize, an officer's commission, to civil and literary, not to military proficiency. And, in justice to this important question, I should submit to your Lordships' special attention that a considerable portion of this education—poetry and plays—is absurd and demoralizing as instruction, as will be apparent to your Lordships, from the following quotation from the Prologue to the Canterbury Tales:—
  "He was a gentil harlot and a kind,
  A better felaw shulde a man not find,
  He wolde suffer, for a quart of wine,
  A good felaw to have his concubine.
  A twelve month, and excuse him at the full
  In danger hadde he at his owen gise
  The younge girles of the diocese."
  What excuse can be given, my Lords, by the responsible authorities—if there be any responsibility—for giving to boys and youths such low and pernicious study in lieu of books like Napier's Peninsular Campaigns, a model of style and a source of valuable military instruction? And as regards discipline, my Lords, which instruction—Chaucer's looseness, Othello's excesses, or the Duke of Wellington's Art of War—would cause an officer to exhibit a good example to our troops, and exercise a proper control over them, when marching through an enemy's country or when storming a town with the inhabitants at their mercy. A Book of Euclid, history, and geography are taught, but without military adaptation. Candidates are occasionally examined on the operations of war. But as the Examiners are not instructed in war operations, and know nothing about them, the test must be a fallacious one. The greatest anomaly remains to be told. The training of candidates for first appointments in the Army is not of the competency or responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief of the Army—it is taken out of his

  1879
  hands and placed in those of Civil Commissioners. Civil Commissioners select the subjects for examination and conduct the examination, and to Civil Commissioners are entrusted the arbitrary powers of the competitive system, unknown in any other State or Army, except the Chinese, of qualifying or disqualifying candidates for the service of their Sovereign and country—dangerous powers, because secret, as regards the award of marks to answering papers and not controlled or mitigated by any right of appeal or complaint, a right recognized in the most despotic countries—the right of subjects to complain. The rejection of a candidate entails the loss of his career and livelihood. Surely then, my Lords, complaints of unfair rejection should have a hearing?—such as, firstly, refusal to produce candidates' answering papers, which suggests an unfair award of marks; secondly, candidates seated on the back benches at examinations do not hear, on account of the numbers seated in front of them, the questions put by the Examiners, and consequently lose marks; thirdly, that the organic defects of the competitive system make a successful test a matter of chance. It is dependent on the relative proportion of candidates and vacancies. Lastly, my Lords, parents of candidates complain that the literature on which I have commented is opposed to the principles which they have inculcated in them from childhood. Their earnest wish is that their sons should receive a proper education, which would fit them for the Army and all its duties, as well as for educated society. But they complain that the study of sciences, from chemistry to magnetism, added to other subjects, is too great a strain on their mental and physical powers, and deprives them of rest and exercise, and brings on illness. This rigorous and ill-devised education has caused nothing short of unhappiness throughout the country; and it is impossible to go to any gathering without seeing numerous young gentlemen of the best material for the Army—intelligent, with good manners—whose hopes are blighted, and who are thrown on the hands of relatives who have spent, sometimes, all they possess on an unsuccessful education. The powers of the competitive system afford a scope to bias, that innate imperfection characteristic of
  1880
  our fallibility. There is the bias in favour of the War Office, who appointed the Civil Commissioners, and of their educational system. Secondly, there is the bias of literary men for the literary test; and for friends of relatives who come up for examination. Thirdly, there is the bias of the advocates of the policy of the change of the present class of officer, which is the necessary consequence of a wholly literary test. Justice in this country acknowledges bias as innate by the precautions which it has taken against its influence in the administration of the law, without imputing blame to those who entertain it—and I make this observation entirely in the same sense—such as challenges of jurors, mixed juries for foreigners. And in the Army a commanding officer cannot sit as President of a court-martial on one of his men, and an officer of the regiment of a candidate cannot be a member of a board examining him for promotion. As regards the desire to change the present class of officer, as it is called, the proofs of their intentions are unmistakable. A high functionary, in the company of a colleague, stated the intention, some time after the abolition of purchase, to do away with this class; and, about the same time, some not very prudent observations were made in official speeches in Parliament reflecting on these misnamed purchase officers which elicited comments from Members of your Lordships' House, of whom I was one. Recently a very painful sensation was created in your Lordships' House by speeches from two noble Lords on a point which affected most deeply, as understood by the House, the military feeling of numerous officers of two distinguished regiments. Dates and facts disprove one imputation, and an apology was made; and the other statement, which derived importance from being attributed to a Commander-in-Chief, dwindled into nothing when it transpired that the writer was an anonymous writer in a newspaper. Still, my Lords, these sentiments show the current of feeling against this class, particularly when coupled with two ominous omissions in recent educational regulations. The first is the omission of the Commander-in-Chiefs authority over the system; the second is the omission of the word "gentleman" as a qualification for candidates, although it still has a place in the Articles of War

  1881
  as a condition which, if forfeited, subjects an officer to cashiering. I venture to think that I have said enough to show that the present civil test for military candidates, whilst most objection-able in some essentials, does not impart to him any knowledge of his profession, and that it is, besides, unfavourable to discipline. It usurps the time and the powers of the mind which would teach the rudiments of the art of war, so simple and yet so important that the neglect of them has lost within the last few years Empires. How much greater would not be the disadvantage were regiments ordered abroad on a sudden emergency? Our system is not the Prussian system. They have their preparatory schools; they have no Shakspeares or Chaucers, but they combine instruction for the Army with that which is necessary for educated society. We should do well to follow their example in making athletic exercises, especially equitation and running, tests for officers' examinations. To such an extent do they carry this out in Prussia, that a Cavalry officer is not allowed to join his regiment till he has received a certificate from a master of hounds that he can go across country. The combination of a military training with the instruction for educated society during the four or five years of youth the best suited to study, which I have mentioned, is easily accomplished. What public opinion complains of is, that the eccentric and degraded literature on which I have commented takes the place of the very valuable first principles of war, such as judicious skirmishing, the system of outposts and vedettes, ambuscades, knowledge of ground, the first step towards geographical strategy, turning a flank and defending it, and other simple movements, with a strategical object. And I think, my Lords, when you have heard that extract from Othello, as given to candidates as a test of entrance for the Army at this present July examination, you will agree that the substitution of this important but easy military instruction for the really abominable literature I shall quote would be a desirable change. The back shelves of any library would be too good for it—it sins against all good government, civilization, and morality:—
  "OTHELLO.—Act I., Scene I.
  "Iago. Zounds, sir, you are robb'd; for shame, put on your gown;
  1882
  Your heart is burst, you have lost half your soul;
  Even now, very now, an old black ram
  Is tupping your white ewe. Arise, arise;
  Awake the snorting citizens with the bell,
  Or else the devil will make a grandsire of you. Arise, I say."
  "Iago. Zounds, sir, you are one of those, that will not serve God, if the Devil bid you. Because we come to do you service, you think we are ruffians: You'll have your daughter covered with a Barbary horse; you'll have your nephews neigh to you; you'll have coursers for cousins and gennets for germans.
  "Brab. What profane wretch art thou?
  "Iago. I am one, sir, that comes to tell you, your daughter and the Moor are now making the beast with two backs."
  Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House an inquiry ought to be instituted into the working and efficiency of the existing system under which candidates for first commissions in the Army are selected and appointed, with the view of ascertaining whether that system is calculated to insure the admission to the Army of those best qualified for the discharge of military duties.—(The lord Strathnairn.)
  LORD WALSINGHAMsaid, that although it was contended that the present examinations were not military examinations, yet he felt it was good that officers should be instructed in subjects which did not bear directly on their profession. Referring to the examination in Experimental and Natural Science up to May, 1873, the number of marks awarded for them was in fair proportion to the possible maximum, and many candidates chose to be examined in them; but in May, 1873, the Examiners seemed to have come down in one fell swoop upon the Science papers, and out of 93 candidates taking them up 72 got no marks at all, while 18 scored only 1,356 among them, or less than any one might have obtained. From that time the number of marks awarded continued proportionately low, and the candidates in Science sensibly diminished. He would not trouble the House with figures, but they went to prove that no candidates were allowed to obtain any appreciable number of marks, and that the Science examination was really almost annihilated. To show that it was not from any falling-off in the proficiency of the scholars, he would mention that in 1872 one gentleman obtained nearly 500 out of a maximum of 1,000, while the same candidate, in May, 1873, obtained only 60 out of a maximum of 2,000, although he had been reading

  1883
  diligently in the interval, and really knew far more than before. Apart from the obvious advantage and interest which attached to such subjects as electricity, magnetism, chemistry, physical geography and geology, they were subjects which were important both for Sandhurst and Woolwich after these examinations were over, and it was to be regretted that by the system pursued with regard to them, candidates were now almost entirely prevented from taking them up. He was told that whereas in other subjects certain test-books were generally accepted, the whole range of literature and science was open to the scientific Examiners, and the result was scarcely fair to the candidates; indeed, questions were asked in the papers on electricity, for instance, about terms of which the exact meaning had never been precisely defined, and on which the highest authorities differed. He did not know what might have been done in the examinations for direct commissions just concluded, but as the same electricity paper had been set which was set for the much more severe examination of candidates for Woolwich, it was evident that there was a disposition on the part of the Examiners to prevent a reasonable and fair approach to the maximum of marks apportioned to these papers. He would be very glad to hear any assurance from the Government that fair proficiency in these scientific subjects would be more generously and liberally dealt with than it had been since May, 1873. If not, he could not see the use of retaining them on the examination list with the attractive maximum of 2,000 marks.
  THE EARL OF SHREWSBURYwas understood to concur in much that had been said as to the desirability of abstaining, as far as possible, from insisting on students acquiring proficiency in useless subjects. In his opinion, much of the examination at present enforced was unnecessary, and in some respects it was simply a farce.
  EARL CADOGANsaid, the noble and gallant Lord who asked for an inquiry into the existing system of competitive examinations (Lord Strathnairn) had to some extent negatived his Motion by his speech—for he had so far prejudged the question as to render any inquiry wholly unnecessary. If he understood his speech aright, the noble and gallant
  1884
  Lord objected altogether to the present system of competitive examinations, and appeared also to wish that the education to be required of candidates for direct commissions should be of a more technical character. Reference had been already made to the Report of the Commission appointed by the noble Lord behind him (Lord Hampton) to inquire into the training of candidates for admission into the Army. The Commissioners in their Report, published in August, 1869, recommended that the examinations at Sandhurst and Woolwich, as well as those for direct commissions—all of them on non-professional subjects—should be transferred to the Civil Service Commission. They also made recommendations as to the general character of the education to be required of candidates for admission into the Army. This brought him to the competitive examinations for first appointments, established in 1871. He thought he was entitled to say that the establishment of those examinations was a direct consequence of the abolition of the system of Purchase. The examinations were never intended as tests of military acquirements, and their general design could not be better described than it was in the Report just referred to. Personally he had no objection to saying he had no great predilection in favour of competitive examination for the Army. He thought many of the arguments used by the opponents of the system were, if not unanswerable, at least plausible. It appeared to be at least probable that a man whose youth had been spent in deep study, and who had earned for himself the name of "bookworm," would not necessarily be the best man to lead a forlorn hope or quell an Indian Mutiny. Many who might have proved valuable officers had been excluded from the Service by the system of competitive examinations. There was in these examinations a great element of luck. Sir John Burgoyne said that it was possible for a man to fail in an examination with one set of candidates and to come first with another. He could not agree, however, with some of the arguments that were adduced by the opponents of competitive examinations. With respect to the allegation that they encouraged cramming, he was much struck by the argument of a noble Friend of his opposite (the Earl of Camperdown), who, in in-

  1885
  troducing the subject of examinations for the Navy the other evening, dealt with this subject. He agreed entirely with his noble Friend, that if we were to establish a uniform test examination for candidates, cramming would be much more facilitated than it was by the present system. With regard to the question of health and want of physique, he did not think it necessary that the examinations as at present constituted should cause injury to the health of any successful candidate. Even if a candidate for a commission did suffer in health from the excess of his labour, all candidates would be inspected by a medical man, and no officer would be allowed to proceed to examination unless he were certified by the Board to be free from bodily defects and ailments, and in all respects as to height and physical qualities fit for Her Majesty's service. He was sorry to find the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Strathnairn) was of opinion that the training of candidates for direct commissions should be technical. In that opinion the noble and gallant Lord was opposed by many persons quite as well qualified to form a correct judgment on the subject. If the noble and gallant Lord's arguments were carried to their legitimate conclusion, all examinations except simple test examinations must be abolished, and we should then be face to face with that bugbear of modern politics—patronage. The tendency of legislation of late years had been to diminish, if not to abolish, all patronage, whether public or private, and he could not help thinking that any Government would take a somewhat bold course which endeavoured to re-establish the system of patronage as an introduction to the Army unless it could be protected and guided by some safeguards which he confessed were at present unknown to him. He trusted he had said enough to justify Her Majesty's Government in arriving at the conclusion to resist the noble and gallant Lord's Motion for an inquiry.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, that this was not the first occasion on which complaints had been made with reference to these examinations; but it appeared from the arguments of noble Lords that evening, that it was not the particular authors selected to whom objection was felt, but that the attacks were directed against the system
  1886
  under which the examinations were conducted. But the system depended upon the Report of the Royal Commission, which was signed by the noble Earl who now presided over the Dominion of Canada (the Earl of Dufferin), a noble Lord holding a high office in the present Government, the present Governor General of India (Lord Northbrook), and five distinguished military Officers. The Commission examined the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, 15 General Officers, and four Members of the Council of Military Education; and with such evidence before them they came almost unanimously to the decision which had been quoted. There were three cardinal points in the Report of the Commissioners of 1860 with regard to candidates for admission into the Army. One was that it was unreasonable to expect of a lad of 16 or 17 any wide professional attainments, but that it was reasonable to expect of him such a general degree of culture as an English gentleman ought to possess. The second point was that the best form of general culture was found in the education given at the great public schools; and the third was that the examination being nonprofessional, it might conveniently be committed to non-professional men. That position seemed to be almost unassailable. He understood open competition to mean this, that, the Army still being popular, for every commission Her Majesty was able to dispose of, two or three candidates were forthcoming, and the Civil Service Commissioners selected for such commission that candidate who they believed was most likely to serve with credit to his country, and submitted his name to the Commander-in-Chief. This was not a state of things, it might be supposed, of which friends of the Army could complain. Their Lordships had been told that open competition led to cramming; but cramming existed before these examinations, and was indeed an inevitable incident of every system of examination. As to "crammers," he might observe that there had been a long struggle between them and the Examiners, and he was happy to say that of late the crammers had had the worst of it. It was difficult to obtain exact information on the subject, but he had reason to believe that out of every 100 candidates who, during the last three years, had gone to Woolwich from seven of our public

  1887
  schools, over 60 went direct from the schools themselves, and a minority only passed through the hands of crammers. Those figures had been supplied to him from a private source, but he believed they represented with a fair degree of accuracy the existing state of things. Their Lordships had been told that competitive examination not only failed to furnish the best men to the Service, but actually tended to the selection of those who were the least qualified. That heresy was quoted by his noble Friend on the front bench opposite. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) believed that that was a most mischievous fallacy. He feared that young lads hearing such theories as had been propounded by men in the position of the noble Lords who had spoken that evening they would be disposed to say—" Let us throw our books on one side, and go in exclusively for cricket and rowing. "On a matter of this kind a very little experience was worth a very great deal of theory, and he hoped the illustrious Duke on the cross-benches would not fail to say whether the candidates who had come into the Army under the system of open competition were worse in any respect than those who had been admitted under the system which preceded it.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, he could have supported the Motion of his noble and gallant Friend with more satisfaction if it had been simply directed against the system of competitive examinations for first commissions in the Army, instead of being drawn in the modified form in which it appeared upon the Paper. He did not think much would be gained by an inquiry into the subject, because the Report would be that some good and some indifferent officers had been appointed under the system. As to those who were reputed good, nothing would be gained by the discovery, and as to the indifferent it would be invidious that some should be reported inferior to others. Competitive examinations were all very well in the case of Civil servants requiring special qualifications or of officers in the scientific branches of the Army or Navy, but they were not suited to the selection of officers to serve in the Infantry and Cavalry of the Line. The qualifications required for such officers were not such as were likely to be either created or tested by a competitive examination sys-
  1888
  tem. The qualifications to which he referred were, in the first place, courage; in the second, physical health and strength, together with a passion for athletic exercises. These qualifications might be in part ascertained under a competitive system of examination; but they had never been adopted into that system. Moreover, officers should be possessed of the authority and respect which belonged to family connection and position, for there was nothing more respected in the Army than name and family position—they were the elements of solidity and order. In the fourth place officers of the British Army should be in the possession of private means, without which an officer could not maintain himself under the existing conditions of service in the Army—no one could keep his son in a decent and honourable position in the Army without allowing him about twice as much as he received from the State. These qualifications were not to be, as he had before remarked, either fostered or tested by means of a system of purely intellectual examination; and if it were necessary to strengthen speculative argument by experience, it might be mentioned that no such system of examination prevailed in any of what could be called the military nations of Europe. It was with regret that he felt himself bound to differ from many noble Lords who sat on his side of the House, and especially from the noble Viscount (Viscount Card-well), who had taken a very conspicuous part in the military alterations of recent years. No one recognized the great service of the noble Viscount to the Army more than he did. By the abolition of purchase, the establishment of depôt centres, and the introduction of practical and strategical exercises on a large scale the noble Lord had rendered great services to the country, the value of which would be recognized more and more as time rolled on. But he ventured to doubt whether he had taken the wisest course with reference to the system of examination. It was urged in favour of the present system that it obviated the obligations and responsibilities of patronage, but he believed that in all respects patronage was destined to be extinguished; and as for the contention that the system of nomination was objectionable, inasmuch as it put those who were anxious to obtain ap-

  1889
  pointments for their eons into the painful position of soliciting favours, he thought the inconvenience, such as it was, ought to be suffered for the general good. He believed, however, that no great inconvenience would be experienced by applicants so long as the patronage was vested in the present Commander-in-Chief, who belonged to the Royal Family, and who was thus placed far above the obligations of family connection. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Government would not lose sight of the question, and that at some future time they would see their way to the introduction of such changes in the system of competition as would give a more prominent place to physical and social qualities than was now the case.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYwas understood to restate his objections to the adoption of Chaucer's works as a subject of examination. It was in no way in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners. They recommended that in the preliminary examination such subjects were to be submitted to examination as came in the ordinary course of good public schools. Now, however attractive any public school might wish to show itself to English literature, he had never heard that anyone had introduced Chaucer into its course; and, if so, its introduction was at variance with the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners, and was forcing on the young men intending to enter military service a study totally useless to their future or any ordinary career. He had no objection to the study of Chaucer in itself.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that if Shakespeare and other old English authors were to be tabooed because they sometimes appeared indelicate and coarse when judged by the modern standard, there would be very little of our best literature left. Under such a rule, the classics, such as Horace, Juvenal, &c, would, of course, go; and, indeed, he did not know how far the rule would not carry them, even to the highest of all literature.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHremarked that he himself and a good many noble Lords on his side of the House disapproved of the system of open competition, and he wished to know why they were called upon to vote against the Motion? He wanted to know
  1890
  why there had been such an ominous silence on the part of the Government? This was a question on which he thought the Government ought to offer some explanation to the House whether the system of competition was to be maintained, or whether those were right who considered it objectionable. Was the system one that ought to be maintained, and would the Government state, if they were not now disposed to condemn it, whether they were making inquiries for the purpose of testing the soundness of their previous opinion on the subject?
  LORD STRATHNAIRNdenied that he had ever said or thought of saying, as attributed to him by his noble Friend (Earl Cadogan), that technical education ought to be the only education of officers; on the contrary, his opinion was that military training was not perfect unless it went hand in hand with the education of enlightened society; and precisely because he was opposed to an isolated education he disapproved so much of the wholly civil education as a test for officers of the Army. He had been equally misrepresented—he had no doubt involuntarily—as to what he said about equitation:—what he said was that the Prussian Army attached the greatest importance to good education for all classes of officers—for the Staff especially, and equally so for the Cavalry—and to such an extent that no officer was allowed to pass for the Cavalry unless furnished with a certificate by the two officers who kept packs of hounds at the Government expense for the express purpose of training officers that they could go across a country. The noble Lord who represented the War Office (Earl Cadogan) had spoken in terms of high eulogy of the sanatory state of the candidates at the July examinations; but he (Lord Strathnairn) had heard a very different account from good authority, that so many of the candidates had exhibited such symptoms of overwork and illness that the medical officer, of whose competency it was, had inspected them, and had found it necessary to direct them to leave off their studies. His noble Friend (the Marquess of Bath) had completely represented the state of feeling on his side of the House, and he agreed with him that if he (Lord Strathnairn) had brought forward his Motion two years ago he would have been supported by a large majority.

  1891
  However, he (Lord Strathnairn) derived much satisfaction from the manner in which the representative of the War Office in their Lordships' House had spoken of the competitive system. He had said that he himself was not well disposed towards it; and as his opinions indicated the desire to make changes in the system, and as the feeling of some noble Lords was not to press the question to a division, he would conform to that opinion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

NATAL.

  ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  LORD BLACHFORDmoved an Address for the production of Correspondence relating to certain proposed alterations in the Constitution of Natal. He did so, because he had long thought that this small Colony was, from its liability to a serious native war, the most dangerous in Her Majesty's dominions, and because he was apprehensive lest the measures of Her Majesty's Government might diminish, instead of increasing, their power of dealing with that danger. Natal was occupied by 17,000 or 18,000 Europeans scattered among 250,000 Natives, submissive, no doubt, and grateful at present, but liable to become discontented, and in case of disturbance to be recruited or assisted by the inexhaustible tribes of Zulus and Kaffirs beyond our frontier. In New Zealand 50,000 Natives, cut off by the sea from all assistance, were pitted against almost an equal number of Europeans, and the result was before us. It could be hardly doubted that a serious African war might be far more disastrous to the colonists—more costly to this country and, what ought not to be left out of sight, would involve far greater slaughter of the Natives than that which we had lately brought to a close against the Maories. The form of government in Natal was most unfitted to meet such dangers. The administration was conducted by an Executive Council of which Government officials formed a large majority. Laws were made and money voted by a Legislative Council in which the Representative Members bore a majority of two to one. Let it be considered what would be the state of Ireland, if it were governed by an elective Legis-
  1892
  lature representing a small minority of the inhabitants, while the administration consisted of permanent officials sent from England, proclaiming that they existed for the protection of the majority. Such a constitution would certainly not conduce to the peaceful transaction of business. Nor had it done so in Natal—which had long been about the most troublesome colony in the British Empire. It was the A B C of constitutional history that a representative Legislature, with the power of the purse, would persistently struggle for control over this Executive. This struggle had been for some time continuous in Natal. Nor was this to be complained of. It was the natural course of colonial development. And the differences had been almost uniformly on questions which, though important, were not dangerous—finance, public works, loans, the distribution of political power, and so on. But now a fresh element was brought into view. The case of Langalibalele, whatever its merits, served us with notice of two dangers—one the combination of Native tribes against our authority—the other, that in the face of such a combination the British authority might be weak or divided. He (Lord Blachford) was strongly of opinion, that in any colony where a powerful body of Natives existed, the Government should be one of two kinds. The conduct of native policy should be with that power which was responsible for the safety of the Colony. Either the Colony should conduct its own Native policy, and be left to take the consequences of conducting it badly—which meant the establishment of responsible government and ultimate withdrawal of troops, or the Home Government charging itself with the protection of the Colony, should have thorough control over the Native policy; which meant the presence of British soldiers and government by a Crown Council. For in what might be called the leading case of New Zealand, there was a general concurrence of opinion that the attempt to separate the Native policy from the general administration of the Colony was a failure which ought not to be repeated. These being the necessities of the case, what was now proposed. It was proposed to establish a somewhat cumbrous Legislature of about 30 persons, composed of elective Members and Government nominees—but so

  1893
  constituted that the elective portion should have a hare majority. It must be remembered that Government nominees were not a Government party. If the office of nominee were to be respectable, the nominee must be allowed a large independence; and if nominees were to be largely independent the Government might find, when they had to confront a popular feeling, that though they might pick up a few votes among the elective members, they would be almost equally likely to lose some among their own nominees. Such a condition of things, therefore, did not furnish a firm foundation for a steady Native policy; nor, therefore, such a guarantee for the peace of the colony as this country had a right to expect. But it might be said the proposed constitution was at any rate better than the existing one. Was that so? The existing constitution was most inconvenient; but it contained one valuable clause—a power of revocation, which, in the prospect, or on the actual occurrence of serious danger, Her Majesty's Government might use to sweep aside obstacles and assume all necessary powers. That was the point at which he had been driving. What he earnestly desired Her Majesty's Government to consider was this—whether their proper course was not boldly to use the power which they had in their hands, to establish that form of constitution which in their hearts they believed to be best for the Colony and the country; or failing that, whether it were right to abandon a power which in case of actual or anticipated danger, might be used to lift them beyond the reach of embarrassment, in order to obtain a mitigation of existing evils which, he could not but fear, would prove wholly delusive.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Papers relative to the recent change in the Constitution of Natal."—(The Lord Blackford.)
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, no one certainly has a better right to criticize the course which has been adopted in Natal, because no one can do it with fuller knowledge than my noble Friend opposite. He has watched all proceedings there for many years—proceedings which he admits to be full of difficulty in the ordinary administration and legislation of the Colony; and
  1894
  no one should be better able to appreciate, than he does, the difficulty' which not only the Home Government but which the Colony itself has to contend with in dealing with this subject. My Lords, it has been a very difficult question, and one which has taxed not only the ability of the singularly able administrator whom it has been our good fortune to have on the spot, but also the good feeling and the good sense of the Colony. And I desire thus early in my remarks to bear my testimony to the fair and, on the whole, dispassionate manner in which a question, raising, as it must have done, the gravest issues for the Natal Legislature, was discussed by that Assembly. My Lords, while I readily admit the weight of the criticism offered by my noble Friend, I entirely disagree from him in thinking that the change which has been made is either a small or a barren one. I believe, on the contrary, that it will bear fruit—I am sure that it will bear fruit if the measure which has now been passed receives at the hands of the Natal Legislature that fair consideration for which, to judge from the antecedents of the last few months, I am quite willing to give them credit. The original Constitution was one in which the Executive Power was lodged in the hands of a Governor appointed from this country and a permanent staff of Officers; while the Legislative power on the other hand was intrusted to an Assembly, not composed, as the noble Lord described it, of two elected Members to one nominated Member, but of three elected Members to one nominated Member—which made it more difficult to work. The Bill which has just been passed by the Natal Legislature reverses, it may be said, in most of its features that state of things. There have been eight Members added to the Council, all the eight being Government nominees. The total number will therefore be 28, or 15 elected and 13 nominees. Those new Members are required to have a real property qualification of the value of £1,000; they are to be on the voters' list for two years at least; and some other conditions are also laid down. Lastly, of the eight additional Members four are taken from the coast districts and four from the up-country districts, between which there has always existed a rivalry which I think their interests hardly bear out. That is the alteration

  1895
  which has been effected, and I quite differ from my noble Friend when he says it is small. My noble Friend seems to think there can be but one or two modes of Government applicable to a colony under the conditions which exist at Natal—either total and complete freedom, such as is accorded by the grant of responsible Government; or, on the other hand, absolute and direct control from the Home Government in England. Now, my Lords, the Constitution of Natal lies somewhat between those two extremes, and I am not disposed to quarrel with it on that ground. I value as highly as any man responsible Government, and he is a dull man who has watched the progress for some years past of Canada and the Australian Colonies without appreciating the marvellous effects produced by responsible Government in a congenial soil and under fair conditions. But its success depends on the elements from which it is to be drawn, and on the means by which it is to be worked; and the conditions which exist in Natal render responsible Government there totally out of the question. For many years past there has been a growing conviction on the part of all authorities, not only in this country, but even on the spot, that the existing Constitution of Natal which is just passing away was not only highly unsuitable, but impracticable. In 1865 a memorial was sent by the Legislative Council praying for a change. In 1869 a Bill was actually passed for the reform of the Constitution. That Bill erred, I think, on the side of giving responsible Government to the Colony, and effect was not given to it. Two years later a memorial was addressed to the Secretary of State from the coast districts praying for an increase of representation. In the following year, I think, the noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Kimberley), then Secretary of State, used the powers to which the noble Lord (Lord Blackford) has referred for the purpose of reserving to the Government a much larger control over the finances of the Colony than it had before exercised. Lastly, in 1874—only a twelvemonth ago—another Bill was passed by the Legislative Council of Natal, which was still more in the direction of responsible Government, and which I found myself obliged to advise the Crown to disallow. All this shows, at least, that even the Colony itself was dissatisfied with its Constitution.
  1896
  Well, what is the result? The Constitution has been tried and has undoubtedly failed. There have been repeated difficulties between the local Executive Government and the Legislature. There have been equally numerous difficulties between the Colony and the Home Government. I could quote passages from the despatches of my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Kimberley), and those of his predecessor (Earl Granville), which point to the perfect hopelessness, in the existing state of things, of working that Constitution. At the present moment, no doubt, owing to the want of due administrative arrangements in the public offices, business of mere ordinary routine is to a great extent stopped. Moreover, I am satisfied that there has been a very large expenditure of public money on objects not always worthy of it; while, on the other hand, matters of vital consequence have been neglected; and in spite of the ability and conscientiousness of Mr. Shepstone, whose name is well known in this country, there has not in my opinion been that control over Native affairs which is required by the public interest. The result is that there has been a stagnation, so to speak, of many of the industrial interests of the Colony. There has been—as I think Sir Garnet Wolseley pointed out to the Legislature—that want of internal security which leads, in the long run, to a want also of external confidence—which hinders emigration and which prevents the real development of the Colony. Meanwhile, there have been in that Colony questions of the very highest moment to be settled. The question of emigration is one of the greatest complexity. There is also the question of public works—such as those connected with roads, with the harbours of Natal, and with the railway, which, above all things, is required there. There has been, moreover, a force of 30,000 armed Natives resting like thunder clouds upon the frontier of the Colony. I must say it seems to me impossible that those questions can be satisfactorily or safely dealt with if you have not a strong Government in the Colony itself. My Lords, that strong Government you have not had. In a great measure this is owing to the fact that, in the Legislature at least, the Government has always been in a minority and has been obliged to conciliate here and conciliate there in

  1897
  order, if possible, to satisfy contending parties. Not only has the Colony been often in danger, but that Native element, which I agree with my noble Friend in regarding as an element of great insecurity, is keen-sighted enough to perceive the weakness of the Government and has sometimes taken advantage of it. Under these circumstances, I felt that the time had come when the change could no longer be delayed. Now the question is, whether that change has been wise or not? My noble Friend (Lord Blachford) pointed, as I understood him, to two alternatives—one, complete Responsible Government, and the other a strict form of Crown Government. I think I have shown the House that responsible Government is not suited to the present condition of Natal. As to the other alternative, I will not say that a strict form of Crown Government would not work well, but I think it is prudent statesmanship never to insist upon more than is absolutely necessary—especially when the freedom of Englishmen is concerned. I would rather go upon the principle of trust than upon the principle of rigid restriction. The Colony has had its difficulties. The Legislature, like all other Legislatures, may occasionally not have been wise. But within the last few months it has consented to a change which must have been repugnant to the feelings of many of its Members, and I think we shall be right in trying first the principle of trust. My noble Friend talks of it as a very cumbrous machinery which is being set up. I cannot see that it is so cumbrous as he seems to think it. I believe that the Legislature will be very evenly balanced, and that with proper management it ought to work well. At all events, this is a compromise which on the one hand strengthens the Executive, while it does not take away the representative institutions which exist. If, unfortunately, it should be found, after all, that the Legislature is incapable of dealing with the questions which will come before it, then, and then only, will be the time to tighten the knot and to take greater powers than are now exercised. In the first instance, however, I would rather accept the spontaneous and free gift of the Colony than impose, in an uncompromising and, perhaps, ungracious spirit, fetters which I do not think are deserved. It may be satisfac-
  1898
  tory to the House to know that the result already achieved is considerable. I may mention here—what your Lordships have, perhaps, been made aware of by the public prints—that the Cape Government has acceded to the release of the Kaffir Chief Langalibalele. By this time I trust he has left Robben Island and gone to the place assigned to him for his future residence, where his family will have a reasonable amount of access to him, at the same time that all due precautions are taken with a view to the safety of the Colony. At the time when this subject was under discussion in your Lordships' House there were gloomy anticipations as to what the Cape Government would do. I ventured to say on that occasion that the Cape Government on a re-consideration of the matter would feel that there was nothing very exacting in the request addressed to them, and that they would meet us in the spirit in which we endeavoured to approach them. That confidence has been justified, for they have done all I thought they would do. The tribes have been allowed to go back to their own parts of the Colony; but it has been provided—and I think wisely—that the locations should be small and, as far as possible, separate one from the other. One tribe, which was broken up on a mere suspicion, for which it appears there was no good foundation, has been restored to its position, and the sum of £20,000 has been very judiciously laid out by Sir Garnet Wolseley in cattle, stock, agricultural implements, &c, which were to be given to the tribe by way of compensation. Farms have been assigned to White settlers between some of the Native locations; and in other respects steps have been taken to carry out the policy which was sketched in the despatch laid before your Lordships two or three months ago. That policy is one which, no doubt, raises many very grave questions. It is one which must be carried out with extreme caution. I have great confidence, however, in those to whose hands the execution of it has been intrusted. It may be that the security of the Colony will have to be provided for still further in a military point of view while this policy is in progress; but that is a matter which requires consideration. I am satisfied, however, from the reports I have received as to the progress of affairs, that though much has

  1899
  not been actually accomplished much has been commenced, and the way has been paved for still more. I cannot conclude without expressing my acknowledgments and the acknowledgments of Her Majesty's Government to the very eminent Officer who at a few hours' notice undertook the singularly difficult task which was intrusted to him. Sir Garnet Wolseley has given evidence of the highest military capacity, and all I would now say is that he has shown in the administration of civil affairs in the midst of very great difficulties an amount of ability, tact, and prudence which are equal to the military qualities he has displayed on other fields. My Lords, I have confidence also in his successor. Sir Henry Bulwer comes of a family whose name is illustrious in this country—of a family that has done great and good service. I entertain the hope that in the new sphere of action to which he has been transferred he will maintain the traditions of his race and name. In conclusion, I will only venture to say this much, and I shall be glad if my words go to Natal—I would earnestly entreat those who have taken part in these transactions, whatever their views may be—whether it be the Bishop of Natal, whether it be others who have taken a leading part by influence, by word, or by action—I would entreat them to allow the past now to be forgotten and to address themselves to the future. I would entreat them to bury the past discords which have agitated the society of Natal, to allow the sleeping lions of future controversy to slumber for awhile, and to give a fair, a friendly, and a loyal support to that Constitution which they have discussed freely, and which now is in existence.
  LORD CARLINGFORDthought that the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies implied—and, if so, he was not able to agree with him—that there was no choice between a Constitution in which the popular element should be dominant and the reduction of Natal to the position of a Crown Colony—namely, a Colony governed by a purely nominee Legislature. Surely this was not the only choice? He regretted that when the noble Earl made this change in the constitution of the Colony he did not go a step further and place the nominated members in the majority. The noble Earl hardly did justice to the main reason
  1900
  which rendered a popular form of Government inapplicable to a so-called Colony like Natal, where a certain number of European settlers were surrounded by a much larger proportion of uncivilized men, who could never be represented in a Legislature, and who presented a constant danger to the safety and stability of the Colony—a danger which made it always necessary for the colonists to look to the Home Government for their protection. This being the case, surely it was necessary that the Home Government should be able to control the local affairs and legislation of the Colony. The noble Earl had stated that that would be practically the effect of the change, and in most cases it probably would; but would it not have been better if the noble Earl had fully and frankly informed the colonists that the Government must secure the power of controlling the colonial policy. He believed the moral influence of a popularly elected body in the Council, although in a minority, would have been very great in all purely domestic matters. When, however, it came to questions of Native policy, in which colonial interests and feelings were often so strongly felt and so hotly excited, he was not so sure of Government being able to carry its points; and when the balance was very close it would give an awkward degree of power to one or two members of that small elected majority, who would be able either to support or overthrow the policy of the Government. If the noble Earl had gone a step further, he would have put the Home Government in a much safer position than it would now occupy, both in regard to the protection of the Native people and the assertion of its own rights and duties.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he could not entirely agree with his noble Friend behind him (Lord Blachford). No doubt it was a plausible thing to say that in the Colony of Natal it was desirable for the Government to have the power it possessed in a Crown Colony. He agreed that we could not establish a responsible Government in such a Colony as Natal; but what he wished to point out was that, although there was something neat, as it were, in the dilemma—"Either have a responsible Government or a simple Crown Colony," yet he thought the course taken by his noble Friend oppo-

  1901
  site was the wisest under the circumstances. Here was a Colony which for some time had enjoyed a very considerable measure of self-government: moreover, it was placed near other Colonies which enjoyed free institutions; and, on the whole, he thought his noble Friend had done wisely in being content with what he had attained. The willingness with which the colonists had accepted the advice of the Home Government showed their great good sense and self-control. With the liberty allowed to them by the new Constitution, it might be possible to establish a strong Government, and ultimately to pave the way to the full measure of self-government, so as to relieve the Home Government from the heavy responsibility which for a time must attach to it in respect of this Colony.
  LORD BLACHFORDasked whether the noble Earl would produce the Papers?
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONreplied that he would produce extracts from them after he had looked them through.
  Address agreed, to.

ENTAIL AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 214.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
ENTAIL AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 214.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that it had come from the other House, and so anxious were Members of the other House that it should become law this year, that, although they would have desired to make alterations in it, they declined to propose any alterations in order that it might pass through as rapidly as possible. The Bill had been approved by the three great bodies representing the legal opinion of the metropolis of Scotland—the Faculty of Advocates, the Writers to the Signet, and the Society of Solicitors to the Court of Session, and by the two which expressed the legal opinion of the provinces—the Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow and the Society of Advocates in Aberdeen. The reason that had induced the Government to introduce the measure was that the restrictions under the Scotch Entail Act of 1685 had be-
  1902
  come so rife and so great that, as Lord Rutherfurd had said, a nobleman could not alter the inscription on a button worn by his livery servant. That state of things was to some extent remedied by the Rutherfurd Act of 1848, and it was not proposed by the present Bill to affect or alter the Law of Entails in Scotland, which were analogous to English entails with one exception. In England, as their Lordships knew, the tenant for life and the tenant in tail in remainder might, since 1848, by consent with each other break the entail, and the tenant in tail might do that as soon as he reached 21 years of age. In Scotland a tenant in tail could not give his consent until the age of 25. He supposed that the Scotch character was so incautious upon the subject of money or property that a greater amount of protection was required to be thrown around a young gentleman in Scotland than was required to be thrown around a young gentleman of similar position in England. Her Majesty's Government had arrived at the conclusion that, whatever might have been the state of the Scotch character in 1848, the time had arrived with the gradual progress of enlightenment in that nation that a Scotchman who had attained 21 years should be allowed, as in England, to take part in disentailing an estate. It was strongly expected that the Rutherfurd Act, which was passed in 1848, would by this time have extinguished all the perpetuities which had existed under the old Scotch Law of Entail, and that had to a great extent happened—a great many Scotch entails had been opened since 1848. But nevertheless, the Rutherfurd Act had not opened entails to the extent that was anticipated. It imposed several conditions with regard to the opening of entails which had practically prevented the opening of entails. Among other things, it provided that if there was only one heir in existence, he might himself disentail property whether he was born before or after 1848, provided he was unmarried. If he was unmarried, though he had no children, he could not do so. As he had said, a considerable number of estates had been disentailed, but a large number still remained, and the result was that they created destinations so remote that the relatives could hardly be traced, and the remaindermen could hardly be found, and were sometimes

  1903
  not known by sight to the owner, the consequence being that it was next to impossible in the first place to trace them, and when traced they would not give their consent except on payment of an extortionate sum. It was proposed to provide by this Bill that in all cases the consent of the nearest heir was to be required before an entail could be barred, and that in the case of remoter heirs the Court should have power to fix a value upon their expectancy, and to take steps for having the amount paid over to them before an entail could be barred. It was also proposed to enable married heirs who had no issue to disentail, and to extend the limit at present existing with regard to the kind of improvements the making of which could be made chargeable upon estates, as also the mode in which those charges might be levied upon the properties. These were briefly the main provisions of the measure which he asked their Lordships to read the second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that he did not rise to oppose the Bill, but thought that it would require very careful consideration, because it had not passed through any ordeal of examination in the House of Commons. With regard to the change of the ages, he thought that it was extremely doubtful whether it would not be better to retain the age of 25, except for one reason—namely, that it seemed very invidious that in Scotland a young man should be considered to be of age at 21 for every other purpose but this. The 9th clause enabled an heir of entail to make a perpetual charge for improvements, and the objection felt was that the improvements would wear out and require renewal, and therefore there ought not to be a permanent charge made for them; and he complained that this proposal was even contrary to the principle of the Scotch Agricultural Holdings Bill. The true principle was to make a charge for 20 years, and there was nothing to oppose to that but the present custom. It might happen under this Bill that for improvements executed 50 years before the whole of the cost might be imposed upon the heirs. He thought that most unjust, and complained that
  1904
  the Bill enabled the life-tenant to charge his posterity with the full value of all the improvements he had made during his life. If other noble Lords did not put Amendments on the Paper, he should do so in Committee, where he hoped the clauses would be fully discussed.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, that the Bill had slipped through the other House without discussion. It might be described as a Bill to enable half-a-dozen noblemen in the North of Scotland to relieve themselves of their difficulties at the expense of all the rest. He objected to the measure because it gave greater facilities to cutting off entails; and that the age of 21 was substituted for 25, for the obvious reason that a young man, for the sake of an increased allowance, and to relieve an embarrassed father, would more readily consent to cutting off an entail than if he had arrived at a more mature age. What he termed the burthening clauses would require the most careful consideration. There was no doubt that some cases existed which justified the introduction of the measure; but it would have to be most carefully examined in Committee.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANapproved of the Bill generally, but should be sorry to see it passed without some of the safeguards referred to by the noble Lords who had spoken. He thought the provisions with reference to charging improvements were much too wide.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he looked upon the Bill as a step towards the practical amendment of the Law of Entail in Scotland. He was gratified that Her Majesty's Government had undertaken to introduce it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORpointed out that the reason why it had gone through the House of Commons without discussion was the great unanimity with which it was supported by the Scotch Members, who did not wish to imperil its passing by debating its provisions. The real aim of the Bill was to carry out further the principle of the Act of 1848, and not to put an end to entails in Scotland.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

  DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND ART BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for making further provision respecting the Department of Science and Art—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 221.)

  FOREIGN JURISDICTION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for amending the Foreign Jurisdiction Acts—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 224.)
  House adjourned at Ten o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.